TEXO THE BUILDERS,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

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

40A(3) of the Act for both the years and further addition was made under section 68 of the Act of Rs.8

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

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

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

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

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

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 40A(3) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the assessment years

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 40A(3) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the assessment years

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 40A(3) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the assessment years

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 40A(3) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the assessment years

SRI. MALLANGOUDS SANKAGOUDASHANI,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

68,41,300/-. Thus the difference between he assessee’s valuation and the DVO’s valuation is only Rs. 15,928/-. Since it is a matter of estimate and the DVO’s valuation is based on estimated rates and not on the actual ITA Nos. 259 & 295/Bang/2014 Page 62 of 76 expenditure therefore, this small difference between the assessee

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

68,41,300/-. Thus the difference between he assessee’s valuation and the DVO’s valuation is only Rs. 15,928/-. Since it is a matter of estimate and the DVO’s valuation is based on estimated rates and not on the actual ITA Nos. 259 & 295/Bang/2014 Page 62 of 76 expenditure therefore, this small difference between the assessee

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 payment made to Home Center LLC and consequent depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57

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 payment made to Home Center LLC and consequent depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57

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 payment made to Home Center LLC and consequent depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57

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 payment made to Home Center LLC and consequent depreciation amounting to Rs.17,11,500/- was claimed. He also observed that professional fees of Rs.40,79,397/- was paid to RNA. The Ld.AO thus disallowed total of Rs.57