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

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

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

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

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

68,694 made to M/s. Akshay Industries, Bangalore following the decision of the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Renukeshwara Rice Mills (supra), holding as under at paras 5.1 and 5.2 of his order : “5.1 I have considered the arguments carefully. The crux of the issue in this case is whether, the provisions of section

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:

7 of 24 section 40A or the payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession under the proposed sub-section (3A) of section 40A, as the case may be. To illustrate with an example, let us assume a taxpayer has incurred an expenditure of Rs 40,000/-. The taxpayer makes separate

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. 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. 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

7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act submitted that the intent of bringing the said provisions was to curb the black money but genuineness of transaction, business expediency and genuine hardship has also been kept as relevant consideration by way of above provision. She submitted that the intention

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

7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act submitted that the intent of bringing the said provisions was to curb the black money but genuineness of transaction, business expediency and genuine hardship has also been kept as relevant consideration by way of above provision. She submitted that the intention

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

7 of 13 3.7 The ld. A.R. referring to the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act submitted that the intent of bringing the said provisions was to curb the black money but genuineness of transaction, business expediency and genuine hardship has also been kept as relevant consideration by way of above provision. She submitted that the intention

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

7 of 26 ITA No.1376-1379/Bang/2019 on account of various persons with whom assessee was alleged to be transacting for purchase of land. 10. For assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, Ld.AO made addition on account of receipts from sale of land sold during the year as business income. 11. Against additions so made, assessee preferred appeal before

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

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

7. It is for this precise reason, Tribunal has rightly held that order passed by the TPO and. DRP is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The said finding is based on the authoritative principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd referred to herein supra which has been followed by Co-ordinate Bench

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 KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KHARKANE LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2010-11

68,290 Mysore Rs.8,77,285/- not Rs.1,00,286/- Opening debit MESCOM- 5 51,33,199 50,45,778 52,21,267 balance Mangalore Rs.51,33,846 7.3 A close scrutiny of materials available on record, facts emerged as under :- (i)Goods supplied to the consumer on prevailing market rate not as per the price determined/notified by IEEMA. During

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

7. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in ;holding the appellant has made an additional investment of Rs.15,00,000 on Flat and that requires to be assessed u/s. 69B of the Act. 8. The learned CIT (Appeals) having ;upheld the addition made on account of POOJA the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the same as available