TEXO THE BUILDERS,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

40A(3) of\nthe Act and disallowed the amount. It is submitted that the learned\nAssessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness of the transactions\nand business expediency. However, disallowance was carried out purely\non the violation of provisions of section

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act and disallowed the amount. It is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness of the transactions and business expediency. However, disallowance was carried out purely on the violation of provisions of 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

disallowed under this section to the extent of 20%. If a claim is otherwise not allowable under the provisions of Section 28 to 37 of the Act then the question of applying this section does not arise. The provisions of Section 40A

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 the interest free advances made to the related parties and further disallowance of interest on loans taken for expansion of the business of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section

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

disallowance. (iii) In the context of section 37 of the I.T.Act, the AO had not explained as to how and why the aforesaid expense is not wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose. (iv) The aforesaid expense is a capital expenditure of the assessee and therefore, to this extent, the section 40A

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

disallowance. (iii) In the context of section 37 of the I.T.Act, the AO had not explained as to how and why the aforesaid expense is not wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose. (iv) The aforesaid expense is a capital expenditure of the assessee and therefore, to this extent, the section 40A

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

disallowance. (iii) In the context of section 37 of the I.T.Act, the AO had not explained as to how and why the aforesaid expense is not wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose. (iv) The aforesaid expense is a capital expenditure of the assessee and therefore, to this extent, the section 40A

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

disallowance. (iii) In the context of section 37 of the I.T.Act, the AO had not explained as to how and why the aforesaid expense is not wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose. (iv) The aforesaid expense is a capital expenditure of the assessee and therefore, to this extent, the section 40A

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

disallowance. (iii) In the context of section 37 of the I.T.Act, the AO had not explained as to how and why the aforesaid expense is not wholly and exclusively incurred for business purpose. (iv) The aforesaid expense is a capital expenditure of the assessee and therefore, to this extent, the section 40A

ARJUN KESHAVA MURTHY PERIKAL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

section 40A(3) is\nnot automatic, even where cash is paid in respect of any liability incurred\nby the assessee for any expenditure. Before invoking the provision of\nsection 40A(3) of the Act and making disallowances

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

disallowance of Rs.48,66,550/- out of interest expenditure claimed; on grounds that it had not been incurred wholly and exclusively for running his business and also under section 40A

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)

Section\n142(1) dated 02.07.2021 whereas on the contrary, the\nimpugned disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A

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

Section\n142(1) dated 02.07.2021 whereas on the contrary, the\nimpugned disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) inviting disallowance under the said provision in respect of the payments made in excess of the said

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) inviting disallowance under the said provision in respect of the payments made in excess of the said

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A(3) inviting disallowance under the said provision in respect of the payments made in excess of the said

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the income tax Act 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the income tax Act 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance under section 40A(3) of the income tax Act 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

Section\n142(1) dated 02.07.2021 whereas on the contrary, the\nimpugned disallowance was proposed to be made on\naccount of “Cash expenditure in violation of provisions of\nsection 40A