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)

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results of the search and\nalso

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

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original

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

2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\n4. 11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to substantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by treating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 41 response

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to substantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by treating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 41 response

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to substantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by treating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 41 response

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

b is in the\nexclusion of cases where such books of account or\ndocuments, seized or requisitioned' would pertain to or\ncontain information that 'relates to' a person other than a\nperson referred to in Section 153A of the Act.\n• The trigger for the above change was a series of decisions\nunder Section 153C, as it stood prior

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A”. 6.2 Section 92BA of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013. However, clause (i) referred above was omitted by Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 17 of 39 Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.4.2017. As such reference to the TPO in respect of specified domestic transactions mentioned

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, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

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, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

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, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

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, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40A(2)(b). For the above your proposal to treat the payments made to these concerns as inflated expenditure is without any basis. Further, there being actual purchases of bottles and grapes and the transaction being genuine, any attempt to treat the entire payment made to the two concerns as inflated expenditure would be without any basis and against

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

2. The appellant also submitted that material on the basis of which disallowance was proposed under Sec.40A(3) / Sec.40(a)(ia) relating to payments towards transportation charges exceeding the limits specified u/s. 40A(3), was not incriminating material unearthed during the search proceedings and consequently no assessment u/s. 153A could be sustained on the basis of such material. 7. Ignoring

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

2. The appellant also submitted that material on the basis of which disallowance was proposed under Sec.40A(3) / Sec.40(a)(ia) relating to payments towards transportation charges exceeding the limits specified u/s. 40A(3), was not incriminating material unearthed during the search proceedings and consequently no assessment u/s. 153A could be sustained on the basis of such material. 7. Ignoring

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

2. The appellant also submitted that material on the basis of which disallowance was proposed under Sec.40A(3) / Sec.40(a)(ia) relating to payments towards transportation charges exceeding the limits specified u/s. 40A(3), was not incriminating material unearthed during the search proceedings and consequently no assessment u/s. 153A could be sustained on the basis of such material. 7. Ignoring