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

Section 153D dated 31-12-2018. 8. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore who had conducted various hearings during which, the appellant, without prejudice to its contention that there was no violation of the provisions u/s. 40A(3) whatsoever, also submitted that there was no ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023

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

Section 153D dated 31-12-2018. 8. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore who had conducted various hearings during which, the appellant, without prejudice to its contention that there was no violation of the provisions u/s. 40A(3) whatsoever, also submitted that there was no ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023

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

Section 153D dated 31-12-2018. 8. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore who had conducted various hearings during which, the appellant, without prejudice to its contention that there was no violation of the provisions u/s. 40A(3) whatsoever, also submitted that there was no ITA No.948 to 950/Bang/2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

40A(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee was asked to\nsubstantiate why explanation to section 37(1) of the Act should not be invoke by\ntreating the unregistered purchases as illegal mining, given the fact that the\nassessee has failed to establish the genuineness of unregistered dealers. In\nresponse to the above, the assessee stated that all purchases

S R CONSTRUCTIONS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

40A(3). 39. For AY 2016-17, in respect of the contractors for whom cheque books were not found, the CIT(A) has allowed only Rs 5.75 crore, but the actual figure of payment made to these sub-contractors is Rs 5.90 crores which is clear from the summary at Page 2149 of the paper book Volume

MAHESHWARA REDDY VENKATAREDDY JONNALA,BYADGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HAVERI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee in response to query raised mentioned that the above amount was paid against purchase of red chilly and Mr. Jangali is a farmer. The assessee contended that payment in cash is to the cultivator, grower or processor of agricultural produce is covered by the exception under Rule

WELCOME TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

40A(3) of Rs.94,40,000 and completed the assessment on 26.11.2022. 3. Against the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) ON 14.2.2023 belatedly by 111 days. The assessee filed reasons for condoning the delay which were not accepted by the CIT(Appeals) observing that the appeal of the assessee is not filed as per section

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