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 made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal in ITA Nos.645

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

B' BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER\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,\nMangalur - 575 002.\nPAN: AAACB9001B\nAPPELLANT\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nThe Assistant\nCommissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nCircle - 2

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.

B' BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER\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

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

5(b) and holds\nlicense under section 22 of the Banking regulation Act 1949,\nsuch interest are to be considered under the head ‘income\nfrom other sources' & the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is\nnot available on such Interest on investment. However the\ncost of fund and related administrative expenses in respect of\nearning such interest income should also

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

b) Nominal members who are also the assessee's members (D\nClass Members) and which membership is expressly\npermitted by sections 18(1)(a) and 18(2) read with section\n2(f) of the KCS Act, and\n(c) its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

5) of the Act. On\n29/10/2020.\nWas\nprocessed u/s.143(1) of the\n\nPage 34 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nact.\n\nAssesse cited case deals\nwith condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2)(b) of\nthe Income

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

b)Nominal members who are also the assessee's members (D\nClass Members) and which membership is expressly\npermitted by sections 18(1)(a) and 18(2) read with section\n2(f) of the KCS Act, and\n(c)its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would

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

b)Nominal members who are also the assessee's members (D\nClass Members) and which membership is expressly\npermitted by sections 18(1)(a) and 18(2) read with section\n2(f) of the KCS Act, and\n(c)its employees (of some small amounts as staff loans),\nadvanced in the ordinary course, as any business would

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

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

disallowance made u/s.\n80P(2)(d) by the authorities below, the word 'attributable' used in\nthe said Section is of great importance. Hon'ble Supreme Court\nconsidered the meaning of the word 'attributable' as supposed to\nderive from its use in various other provisions of the statute, in\nthe case of Cambay\nElectric\nSupply Industrial Co.\nLtd

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue are allowed and the COs\nfiled by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

B\" BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024\n Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21\nITO,\nVs. M/s. Brahmavara Vyavasaya Seva,\nWard - 1,\nHead Office Unnathi, Brahmavar\nUdupi.\nUdupi Taluk,\nUdupi – 576 213.\nPAN: AAAAB 2992 F\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nC.O.Nos.10, 11, 12/Bang/2024

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

disallowed the deduction under Section\n80P(2)(a)(i) holding that the appellant/assessee is neither a primary\nagricultural credit society nor a primary co-operative agricultural and\nrural development bank. The Ld.AO therein held that the appellant/assessee\nis a \"co-operative bank\" and thus, was hit by the provisions of Section\n80(P)(4) and was not entitled

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

b) specified persons include any person other than-\n(i) Government company;\n(ii) association of persons or trust or society registered under the\nSocieties Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), wholly or partially aided\nby the appropriate Government or controlled by the appropriate\nGovernment.\nFurther section 96 of the act 30 of 2013 reads as under: 96. Exemption\nfrom

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

2. UNITED GLASS MFG CO. LTD. 2012 (9) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT 3. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. [2021] 438 ITR 1 (SC) 4. CANARA BANK 2023 (1) TMI 243 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 5. DSP MERILL LYNCH CAPITAL [2023] 21 ITR-OL 710 (Born) LTD. 6. CANARA BANK. ERSTWHILE 2023 (5) TMI 543 - ITAT SYNDICATE BANK) BANGALORE 7. THE KARNATAKA BANK

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

2. UNITED GLASS MFG CO. LTD. 2012 (9) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT 3. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. [2021] 438 ITR 1 (SC) 4. CANARA BANK 2023 (1) TMI 243 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 5. DSP MERILL LYNCH CAPITAL [2023] 21 ITR-OL 710 (Born) LTD. 6. CANARA BANK. ERSTWHILE 2023 (5) TMI 543 - ITAT SYNDICATE BANK) BANGALORE 7. THE KARNATAKA BANK