M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

investments which arose as a result of corporate restructuring and not involving the usage of borrowed funds ought to be excluded for computing disallowance under section 14A. 5. Disallowance of interest payments on borrowing under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - Rs.140,46,63,276 Erred in law by invoking provisions of section 36(1 )(iii) 5.1. The learned

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained reasons, the assessee has stopped charging interest in the assessment year 2003-04. The commercial bonafides of the present transactions are not established. As regards the assessee's claim that the revenue authorities have re- characterized the transaction, and that they do not have the powers to do so, we find that the claim of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. SRI. SURESH S KANAJI, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

transfer of capital assets for the purposes of computation of capital gains u/s.48 of the Act. We further find that there is no evidence on record to show that the consideration over and above, what has been recorded in the sale deed, has been made by the assessee and in the absencc of the same, no addition of undisclosed investment

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA. Page 13 (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S. SUMUKHA HOLDINGS,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

unexplained source towards the same. Further, section 69 of the Act makes it clear that in order to attract the said provision, the following ingredients has to be satisfied. 1) The assessee should make the investments or incur expenses that are not recorded in the books of accounts. 2) The source of the funds used for this investments or expenses

KUSUMA CASHEWS,KARKALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

unexplained investment for which the AO has not done any enquiry with respect to the source and thereby to this extent, the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Page 6 of 21 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite

DELL INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

Invest India P. Ltd. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 367 (Gujarat). 78. The ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. IT(TP)A Nos.400 & 562/Bang/2015 Page 54 of 73 79. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee has submitted details pertaining to the amount disallowed by the AO and that

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

transfer made to the assessee’s capital account in the books maintained for the nursery called Orchids. The assessee’s explanation is that this debit is nothing but entry made to ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 9 of 25 reconcile the difference of Orchids as there was difference in the opening balance. We agree with the view taken

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

transfer made to the assessee’s capital account in the books maintained for the nursery called Orchids. The assessee’s explanation is that this debit is nothing but entry made to ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 9 of 25 reconcile the difference of Orchids as there was difference in the opening balance. We agree with the view taken

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

transfer made to the assessee’s capital account in the books maintained for the nursery called Orchids. The assessee’s explanation is that this debit is nothing but entry made to ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 9 of 25 reconcile the difference of Orchids as there was difference in the opening balance. We agree with the view taken

K.R. PARAMAHAMSA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

transfer made to the assessee’s capital account in the books maintained for the nursery called Orchids. The assessee’s explanation is that this debit is nothing but entry made to ITA No.1405 to 1408/Bang/2013 Page 9 of 25 reconcile the difference of Orchids as there was difference in the opening balance. We agree with the view taken

HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. MR. MOHAMMED AMEER, UDUPI

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained Cash Investment ITA No. Ground No. Amount 2334 2 510,98,250/- ITA No. 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 74 Total Amount 5,10,98,250/- Issue No. Issue Description 3 Deletion of the Addition made by the AO on Allegation of payment of On Money

MR. MOHAMMED AMEER,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained Cash Investment ITA No. Ground No. Amount 2334 2 510,98,250/- ITA No. 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 74 Total Amount 5,10,98,250/- Issue No. Issue Description 3 Deletion of the Addition made by the AO on Allegation of payment of On Money

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED AMEER, UDUPI

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained Cash Investment ITA No. Ground No. Amount 2334 2 510,98,250/- ITA No. 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 74 Total Amount 5,10,98,250/- Issue No. Issue Description 3 Deletion of the Addition made by the AO on Allegation of payment of On Money

MR. MOHAMMED AMEER,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained Cash Investment ITA No. Ground No. Amount 2334 2 510,98,250/- ITA No. 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 74 Total Amount 5,10,98,250/- Issue No. Issue Description 3 Deletion of the Addition made by the AO on Allegation of payment of On Money

MR. MOHAMMED AMEER,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained Cash Investment ITA No. Ground No. Amount 2334 2 510,98,250/- ITA No. 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 74 Total Amount 5,10,98,250/- Issue No. Issue Description 3 Deletion of the Addition made by the AO on Allegation of payment of On Money

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. ROHAN MONTERIO, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained Cash Investment ITA No. Ground No. Amount 2334 2 510,98,250/- ITA No. 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 74 Total Amount 5,10,98,250/- Issue No. Issue Description 3 Deletion of the Addition made by the AO on Allegation of payment of On Money

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, MANGALURU vs. MR. MOHAMMED AMEER, UDUPI

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

unexplained Cash Investment ITA No. Ground No. Amount 2334 2 510,98,250/- ITA No. 2254 to 2264, 2457, 2334, 1630, 2356, 2357,2373 to 2376 & 2453 to 2456/Bang/2019 Page 8 of 74 Total Amount 5,10,98,250/- Issue No. Issue Description 3 Deletion of the Addition made by the AO on Allegation of payment of On Money