SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 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

40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income\nfrom AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not\napply.\n3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B\nin respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not\npaid within the due date under section 139(1).\n3.4 On facts

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

40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income\nfrom AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not\napply.\n3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B\nin respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not\npaid within the due date under section 139(1).\n3.4 On facts

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. Hence the entire payment of Rs.27,49,31,189 made to Vinayaka Fruit Mandi and Srinivasa Bottle Traders was treated as bogus expenditure and assessed as undisclosed income as follows:- AY Undisclosed income assessed 2008-09 16,74,23,150 2009-10 3

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. Hence the entire payment of Rs.27,49,31,189 made to Vinayaka Fruit Mandi and Srinivasa Bottle Traders was treated as bogus expenditure and assessed as undisclosed income as follows:- AY Undisclosed income assessed 2008-09 16,74,23,150 2009-10 3

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. Hence the entire payment of Rs.27,49,31,189 made to Vinayaka Fruit Mandi and Srinivasa Bottle Traders was treated as bogus expenditure and assessed as undisclosed income as follows:- AY Undisclosed income assessed 2008-09 16,74,23,150 2009-10 3

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. Hence the entire payment of Rs.27,49,31,189 made to Vinayaka Fruit Mandi and Srinivasa Bottle Traders was treated as bogus expenditure and assessed as undisclosed income as follows:- AY Undisclosed income assessed 2008-09 16,74,23,150 2009-10 3

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. Hence the entire payment of Rs.27,49,31,189 made to Vinayaka Fruit Mandi and Srinivasa Bottle Traders was treated as bogus expenditure and assessed as undisclosed income as follows:- AY Undisclosed income assessed 2008-09 16,74,23,150 2009-10 3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(3) of the Act. Hence the entire payment of Rs.27,49,31,189 made to Vinayaka Fruit Mandi and Srinivasa Bottle Traders was treated as bogus expenditure and assessed as undisclosed income as follows:- AY Undisclosed income assessed 2008-09 16,74,23,150 2009-10 3

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

3) of the Act. 15. The Supreme Court, in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd., considered the issue of whether the bottles and crates can be construed the definition of "Plant" and held bottles those could not be considered as stock in trade. However, the issue that arose before the Supreme Court under the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment