AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

249(3) of the Income Tax Act and Section 5\nof the Limitation Act. The appellant has acted with reasonable\ndiligence and good faith. Therefore, a liberal and justice-oriented\napproach mandates that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned\nand the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.”\n11.\nConsidering the above submissions wherein the assessee has\nexplained

M/S.CORNERSSTONE PROPERTY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

249 in view of the single addition of Rs.49.50 Crores. 5.2.1 In the appeal before us, the assessee has assailed the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act dt.10.6.2013, mainly on the following grounds :- (i) that the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction under Section

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)

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on disallowance of 8oP deduction, Rs.3i,66,632/-: a. The authorities below have erred in denying the deduction claimed under section 8oP of the Act though the appellant is lawfully eligible, on the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.705, 706 & 707/Bang/2024 Page

SMT. LIZY GEORGE,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

3. CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. [2008] 302 ITR 246/2006] 156 Taxman 40 (Punj. & Har.) @ 249 4. CIT v. Amman Steel & Allied Industries [2015] 377 ITR 568 (Mad.) @ 580 Page 11 of 34 15. The principle that if a finding offact is not challenged as being perverse, the High Court is bound to accept such finding. Therefore, as no such

CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3) The Assessing Officer shall, subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-section (1) and after the expiry of the period filing the appeals as specified in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270Aand initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3) The Assessing Officer shall, subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-section (1) and after the expiry of the period filing the appeals as specified in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270Aand initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

3. deduction u/s. 80JJAA of Rs.307.52 crores. 4.7.1. The Ld.AO also noted that assessee had substantial tax free income that was earned during the year under consideration amounting to Rs.23,45,95,152/- however assessee had only shown an expense of Rs.1,72,86,259/-. 4.7.2. The Ld.AO noted that assessee had made certain payment to M/s. Forrester Research

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger 2015-16 7,05,000/- 2016-17 26,36,554/- 2017-18 4,29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger 2015-16 7,05,000/- 2016-17 26,36,554/- 2017-18 4,29,759/- 2018-19 99,000/- ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers

SHIVANNA NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the\nassessee stands allowed for statistical purpose with a cost of Rs

sections": [ "144", "249(3)", "249(2)", "115BBE", "68", "51", "234B", "234C" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal

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

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

68,161/-\nii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable,\nthe year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as\nunder-\nΑ.Υ.\n2015-16\n2016-17\n2017-18\n2018-19\nContract charges as per ledger\n7,05,000/-\n26,36,554/-\n4,29,759/-\n99,000/-\niii) Finally the labour contractor Narashimha, submitted

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

249 and 224 of the paper-book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section

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

249. 5.6 It is next contended that the amendment to section 153C of the Act, 1961 has added a new class of assessees and not merely changed the procedure for the existing assessees, hence it cannot be given retrospective effect. That the High Court has specifically observed and held that the amendment to section 153C

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

249. 5.6 It is next contended that the amendment to section 153C of the Act, 1961 has added a new class of assessees and not merely changed the procedure for the existing assessees, hence it cannot be given retrospective effect. That the High Court has specifically observed and held that the amendment to section 153C

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

249. 5.6 It is next contended that the amendment to section 153C of the Act, 1961 has added a new class of assessees and not merely changed the procedure for the existing assessees, hence it cannot be given retrospective effect. That the High Court has specifically observed and held that the amendment to section 153C

SWASTHIK FINANCIERS,KODAGU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in stating that the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act are applicable to the facts in the present case; 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not passing the order in accordance with the provisions of section