M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

40A(2) in respect of interest free advances given to the related parties. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said advances made by the assessee from its own funds and not from the interest bearing fund. As regards the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section

R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the act. The brief facts leading to the controversy, are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s Adarsh Developers on 13/12/2006. During the course of search certain documents pertaining to Sri S. L. Natraj, one of the associate of Sri Jayaram, partner

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed the expenses under section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed the expenses under section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed the expenses under section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed the expenses under section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

disallowed the expenses under section 40A (2)/37 on the ground that they are excessive unreasonable and unrelated, which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 6.2 It is a case of assessee that there is no distinguishing fact for year under consideration vis-à-vis assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11, wherein identical international transaction was found

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

9. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn\nexempted income has to be a smaller part of exempt\nincome and should be a reasonable proportion to exempted\nincome earned by the assessee in that year.\n18. 10. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section

SRI. SHAMBULAL G CHHABRA vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

9 re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 6. Ground No.3 (3.1 to 3.4) – Disallowance of interest of Rs.48,66,556/- under section 40A

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

9).\n11.4. The Learned AO erred in making various\nadditions on the basis of the revised return filed on\n09.02.2021 when making such addition was objected vide\nAppellant's letter dated 12.07.2021 in reply to the notice\nunder Section 142(1) dated 02.07.2021.\n11.5.\nWithout prejudice, the Learned AO erred in\nselectively using the revised return to his convenience

M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DYDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE vs. M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-2(1)(IT), BANGALORE vs. M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned Tax Officer holding that IUC and capacity transfer payments qualify as FTS/ FIS as defined under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (`DTAAs'). 3.4 On the facts