M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance should not have been made under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii). ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 8 of 22 In support

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

2) shall also apply in relation to\na case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred\nby him in relation to income which does not form part of the total\nincome under this Act.\nProvided that nothing contained in this Section shall empower the\nAssessing Officer either to reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing

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)

8. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in\nmaking addition of Rs.18,70,77,583/- to the closing stock\nby applying section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/:\n14.1.\nThe\nimpugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling wages

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

8 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\nCircle 2 vide order of centralization of the Principal CIT,\nMangalore dated 28.07.2021.\n2.3. Without prejudice to the above, the proceedings\nunder Section 153A and the impugned order under Section\n153A dated 29.09.2021 are bad and non-est as the notice\nunder Section 143(2) dated 27.02.2021 was issued by the\nLearned

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

8 of 38 7.11 In conclusion, the assessee submitted that the AO wrongly disallowed deduction under section 80P of the Act by adopting an unduly restrictive interpretation of the provision. It was contended that either the entire amount of ₹19,20,74,941/- is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2

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

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

8. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.” 4. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 5. Ground No.3 & 4 are in respect of the disallowance made under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.8,75,000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether

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.

8. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in\nmaking addition of Rs.18,70,77,583/- to the closing stock\nby applying section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/-\n14. 1. The impugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards labelling

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

8. The expression "members" is not defined in the Act.\nSince a cooperative society has to be established under\nthe provisions of the law made by the State Legislature\nin that regard, the expression "members" in Section 80-\nP(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of\nthe provisions of the law enacted by the State\nLegislature

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

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5.\nAs regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

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

8. The expression "members" is not defined in the Act.\nSince a cooperative society has to be established under\nthe provisions of the law made by the State Legislature\nin that regard, the expression "members" in Section 80-\nP(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of\nthe provisions of the law enacted by the State\nLegislature

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

8. The expression "members" is not defined in the Act.\nSince a cooperative society has to be established under\nthe provisions of the law made by the State Legislature\nin that regard, the expression "members" in Section 80-\nP(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of\nthe provisions of the law enacted by the State\nLegislature

INCOME TAX 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

disallowance under\nsection 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n5. As regards the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, the AO\nnoticed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act for the interest income earned from investments with co-\noperative banks. The AO was of the view that the aforesaid interest income

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

8. Without prejudice, the Learned AO erred in\nmaking addition of Rs.18,70,77,583/- to the closing stock\nby applying section 145A read with ICDS II making\ncorresponding adjustment to the opening stock.\n\n14. As regards ad-hoc disallowance of labelling\nwages of Rs.26,14,691/ :-\n\n14.1.\nThe\nimpugned ad-hoc disallowance\nof\nRs.26,14,691/- towards

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

8. The expression \"members\" is not defined in the Act.\nSince a cooperative society has to be established under\nthe provisions of the law made by the State Legislature\nin that regard, the expression \"members\" in Section 80-\nP(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of\nthe provisions of the law enacted by the State\nLegislature

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

8. The expression "members" is not defined in the Act.\nSince a cooperative society has to be established under\nthe provisions of the law made by the State Legislature\nin that regard, the expression "members" in Section 80-\nP(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of\nthe provisions of the law enacted by the State\nLegislature

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

8. The expression "members" is not defined in the Act.\nSince a cooperative society has to be established under\nthe provisions of the law made by the State Legislature\nin that regard, the expression "members" in Section 80-\nP(2)(a)(i) must, therefore, be construed in the context of\nthe provisions of the law enacted by the State\nLegislature

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

disallowances made by the AO were deleted, and the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 was upheld.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 11", "Section 13(8)", "Section 2