BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

68 of the Act in place of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act, the learned CIT (Appeals) on the merits of the issue, at para 3.16 of the order, held that the addition of Rs.1.25 Crores is to be made as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act instead of the addition as deemed dividend under Section

M/S. DEVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

68 pages and the other comprising of 101 pages). Enclosed in the paper book are the financial statement of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, financial statement of Kausthubha Project Private Limited, JDA agreement entered between the assessee and Pacific Heights (JDA dated 06.11.2014), agreement to sale dated 14.02.2012 between the assessee and M/s.Kausthabha Projects Private Limited, the case

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is only where a loan is advanced by a company to a registered shareholder and the other conditions as set out in section 2(22)(e) are satisfied, that the amount of loan would be liable to be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is only where a loan is advanced by a company to a registered shareholder and the other conditions as set out in section 2(22)(e) are satisfied, that the amount of loan would be liable to be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of section

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualised where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI SACHANAND LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of revenue is treated as dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2007-08 Sri Sachanand Ladhani Acit 12, 3Rd Main Road Central Circle-2(3) Vs. Jayamahal Extension Bangalore Bengaluru 560 046 Pan No : Aazpl5063F Appellant Respondent C.O. No.59/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.58/Bang/2018) Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sri Sachanand Ladhani Vs. Acit Central Circle-2(3) Bengaluru 560 046 Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Respondent By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 30-10-2017 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-11, Bangalore & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal On The Following Two Issues:- (A) Deemed Dividend Assessed U/S 2(22)(E) Of The Act – Rs.1.00 Crore (B) Unexplained Investment Of Rs.53,69,040/- Assessed Protectively. Sri Sachanand Ladhani, Bangalore

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and also the decisions rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. 11. We heard the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that both CAPL and BBPL had entered into an agreement dated 14th November, 2005. The object of entering into the above said agreement is mentioned

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

dividend of Rs.15,78,082/- on preference shares during the financial year relevant to year under appeal which was claimed exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. A copy of the financial statements of Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. for the financial year 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12 are enclosed at pages 70-108 of the paper book which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2007-08

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and also the decisions rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. 11. We heard the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that both CAPL and BBPL had entered into an agreement dated 14th November, 2005. The object of entering into the above said agreement is mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of revenue and both the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and also the decisions rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. 13. We heard the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that both CAPL and BBPL had entered into an agreement dated 14th November, 2005. The object of entering into the above said agreement is mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of revenue and both the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and also the decisions rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. 13. We heard the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that both CAPL and BBPL had entered into an agreement dated 14th November, 2005. The object of entering into the above said agreement is mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU vs. SRI PRAKASH LADHANI, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of revenue and both the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and also the decisions rendered by jurisdictional Karnataka High Court. 13. We heard the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that both CAPL and BBPL had entered into an agreement dated 14th November, 2005. The object of entering into the above said agreement is mentioned

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

dividends, interest on securities etc. but the said provisions also apply to gross sums, the whole of which may not be income or profits in the hands of the recipient, such as payment to contractors and sub-contractors.” 3.51 The decision of Supreme Court in Vijay Ship Breaking Corp. v CIT [2009] 314 ITR 309 is an authority

M/S.BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

68,494. The CIT(A) was of the view that the validity of a search cannot be questioned before him and rejected the legal grounds raised before him. On merits the CIT(A) deleted the protective assessment of deemed dividend. However the CIT(A) retained the assessment of book profits without going into the merits stating that that the assessee

M/S.BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

68,494. The CIT(A) was of the view that the validity of a search cannot be questioned before him and rejected the legal grounds raised before him. On merits the CIT(A) deleted the protective assessment of deemed dividend. However the CIT(A) retained the assessment of book profits without going into the merits stating that that the assessee

M/S.BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

68,494. The CIT(A) was of the view that the validity of a search cannot be questioned before him and rejected the legal grounds raised before him. On merits the CIT(A) deleted the protective assessment of deemed dividend. However the CIT(A) retained the assessment of book profits without going into the merits stating that that the assessee

ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE vs. IRUNWAY INDIA PVT LTD, BANAGLORE

In the result, CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

68, the test of proving the\nnature and source of the credit received stood accepted.\n\n28.\nNow what we are required to examine whether under\nthese facts and circumstances Assessing Officer after invoking\nthe deeming, provision of Section 56(2)(vii) could have determined\nthe fair market value of the premium on shares issued at Nil after\nrejecting

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

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

68,458/- the assessee disallowed on its own Rs. 16.50 lakhs u/s 14A. Despite being asked by the AO to furnish the disallowance under rule 8D, the assessee did not furnish the details. The provisions of rule 8D inserted by the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 with effect from 24.3.2008 are applicable for A.Y. 2008-09 and onwards. Therefore

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

68,82,138/-. The ld. AO has raised a demand of Rs.1086,07,00,024/- after charging interest u/s 234B of the Act as per the normal provisions of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

dividend distribution tax? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not verifying whether there were any extra services for payment of huge remuneration rendered by the Directors thus making it fall under exceptions as per section 36(1)(ii) for it to be eligible for deduction. d. Whether