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, 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

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

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

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

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

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 KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

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

40A(2) in respect of interest free advances given to the related parties. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said advances made by the assessee from its own funds and not from the interest bearing fund. As regards the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section

KIDS CLINIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2011-12 M/S.Kids Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1533, 9Th Main, Range - 5,Bengaluru. 3Rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aacck 7678 R Assesseee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. Tshering Ongda, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 19.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.1.2021 O R D E R

section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and therefore the reasonableness of the payment compared to the fair market rate of interest was required to be judged in terms of Sec.40A(2)(a) of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has borrowed loans from other related parties and the rate

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

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