M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

68,66,897/- to be excessive under section 40A(2) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

68,66,897/- to be excessive under section 40A(2) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

68,66,897/- to be excessive under section 40A(2) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

68,66,897/- to be excessive under section 40A(2) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

68,66,897/- to be excessive under section 40A(2) of the Act. The Ld.AO observed that assessee capatalised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), MYSORE vs. SRI K S HARISH,, MYSORE

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

68,694, totally ignoring the provisions of section 40A(3). 4. For these and such other grounds that may be urged

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(2)(b) on which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO. However, as per para 166 of Budget speech of Finance Bill, 2017, the transfer pricing provisions were amended to exclude specified domestic transactions which are under section 92BA read with 40(2)(b) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations. 2. The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

40A(2)(b) on which TP Adjustment made by the learned TPO/AO. However, as per para 166 of Budget speech of Finance Bill, 2017, the transfer pricing provisions were amended to exclude specified domestic transactions which are under section 92BA read with 40(2)(b) from the purview of transfer pricing regulations. 2. The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 requested that, the appeal be allowed. 3.8. Further, the ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nikko Auto Ltd. (2002) (122 Taxman 874) (Punj. & Har.), wherein held as follows: “There is no dispute about the identity of the payee. The said

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 requested that, the appeal be allowed. 3.8. Further, the ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nikko Auto Ltd. (2002) (122 Taxman 874) (Punj. & Har.), wherein held as follows: “There is no dispute about the identity of the payee. The said

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 requested that, the appeal be allowed. 3.8. Further, the ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nikko Auto Ltd. (2002) (122 Taxman 874) (Punj. & Har.), wherein held as follows: “There is no dispute about the identity of the payee. The said

ACIT vs. M/S COASTAL ROAWAYS,

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Coastal Roadways, D.No.4-64/11, Bantwal Chambers, Balikampady, Mangalore. … Respondent Pan:Aaffc 5977 M Cross Objn.No.35/Bang/2013 (In Ita No.1139/Bang/2013) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) (By The Assessee) ****** Revenue By: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.Cit. Assessee By: Shri R.E.Balasubramaniyan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2016 O R D E R Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm:

40A is being substituted to nullify the loophole created by the judicial decisions, the legal position remains the same even after the said substitution. The newly substituted sub- section (3) contains the phrase "a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day..." This expression is analogous to the phrase "in a sum" used in erstwhile

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 40A(3) of the Act. He also noted that, Ld.AO neither examined nor made any enquiries regarding the same during assessment proceedings. 13. Ld.AR submitted that for years under consideration, Ld.Pr.CIT sought to revise assessment order for verifying following expenditure made by assessee in cash in violation of sec.40A(3). S.No. Asst.Yr. Expenditure paid in cash

SRI.R.P.NARAYANA RAO,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

40A(3). As regards the claim of the assessee that out of Rs.4,39,000, a sum of Rs.1,09,000 was paid through DD, this fact has not been examined by the authorities below 7 and therefore it is set aside to the record of the Assessing Officer to verify the same and then decide this issue

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

40A(2) of the Act:  Kirloskar Oil Engines Vs JCIT, ITA Nos. 61 & 406/PUN/2015 (Pune ITAT)  The Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd., ITA no. 7171/Mum./2010 and others (Bombay ITAT) 28.1 The ld. D.R. submitted that there was no evidence to show that the Executive Chairman Mr. Vijay Mallya rendered any services to the assessee so as to give commission

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

40A(3) of the Act which is identical and stand dismissed in view of our finding for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 67. Ground No.12 is regarding addition under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.22,444 on account of amounts standing to the credit as on 31.3.2008. The learned Authorised

NEOGENETICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

40A(2) of the Act. In view of the above conclusion, we refrain from adjudicating other issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal with regard to correctness of determination of ALP of the SDT. 18. The other ground that needs to be adjudicated in this appeal is Grd.No.13 & 14 raised by the Assessee in the grounds

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ISIRI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

40A(3) of the Act. On this ground also, addition requires to be sustained. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.5: Next ground of appeal relates to addition on account of receipt of share application money of Rs.120 lakhs