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

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

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)

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

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.

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

45 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n5. As regards unsigned notice under Section 143(2) dated\n13.08.2018:\n\n5. 1. Refer 143(2) notice dated 13.08.2018 issued by ACIT CIRCLE_2(1),\nMangaluru. The same is invalid as the same was not signed either\nmanually or digitally. {PB Annexure 1 – Pg.121 -122}\n\n5. 2. The Learned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(4). Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble\njurisdictional High Court in case of, Shree Mahila Credit reported\nin (2017) 88 taxmann.com 712 and Sri Biluru Gurubasava\nreported in (2014) 369 ITR 86.\n12. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee claimed 80P(2)(a)(i) in\nrespect of the interest income earned

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

45 at\npage 47 has held that provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act is to be\nread as a proviso to section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act which specifically\nallows deduction to Co-operative Societies engaged in the business\nof providing credit facilities to its members and not Co-operative\nBanks. The relevant portion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

45,000 as the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 is retrospective in nature. 8. Disallowance of software expenses as capital expenditure:- The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that software expenses where life of software is more than 2

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

45,000 as the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 is retrospective in nature. 8. Disallowance of software expenses as capital expenditure:- The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that software expenses where life of software is more than 2

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

section 148 of the Act.\n6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.\n7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing\nthe business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id.\nCIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same