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.

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

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

money found and hence does not come under the purview of Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla

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

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

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

money as and when the customer required. So, it is highly uncertain as to whether it would at all remain as income of the assessee. Only when the service is done the assessee has a right over the amount that was deposited. Till then, he has no right over the same. It is in that sense till then, it cannot

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

money admitted during the search. 2.4 Subsequently, notice u/s. 263 was issued to the assessee dated 05/01/2022 which is as under: “On examination of the assessment records, it is noticed that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for Asst Year 2018-19 on 24.12.2019 by the DCIT CC 1, Mangaluru is erroneous

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

unexplained without appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant. 7. Disallowance of Employee Stock Option Plan (`ESOP) expenses 7.1. The NeAC and the Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts by disallowing the said ESOP expenses separately even when the same was disallowed as a part of amount disallowed under payments made to AEs (Ground No. 4), leading to double

KAMAL KOTHARI ,CHANNAPATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Kamal Kothari, Vs. Ito, Prop: M/S. B. L. Bankers, Ward – 1, M. G. Road, Ramnagar. Channapatna – 562 160. Pan : Bcgpk 1898 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2023

money and got a credit through bank transfer. If he had cash on hand of Rs.21,00,000/- on that day he would have also deposited the cash he had of Rs.21,00,000/- instead of a bank transfer, as he had done by depositing cash of Rs.20,000/-. This again goes on to prove that the assessee

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

prices dip, materials could be ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 5 of 31 immediately bought and also to give advances to vendors. When the vendors short supply and refund the money the cash was re-deposited into the bank account. The assessee further submitted that certain money was withdrawn towards purchase of agricultural land and when the transaction

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

prices dip, materials could be ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 5 of 31 immediately bought and also to give advances to vendors. When the vendors short supply and refund the money the cash was re-deposited into the bank account. The assessee further submitted that certain money was withdrawn towards purchase of agricultural land and when the transaction

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

prices dip, materials could be ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 5 of 31 immediately bought and also to give advances to vendors. When the vendors short supply and refund the money the cash was re-deposited into the bank account. The assessee further submitted that certain money was withdrawn towards purchase of agricultural land and when the transaction

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

prices dip, materials could be ITA Nos.137 & 138/B/2022 Page 5 of 31 immediately bought and also to give advances to vendors. When the vendors short supply and refund the money the cash was re-deposited into the bank account. The assessee further submitted that certain money was withdrawn towards purchase of agricultural land and when the transaction

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained cash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar, we consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14. 7.1 The assessee is a Private Limited Company and carries on the business as builders and real estate development, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar Group of cases. 7.2 The assessee filed the return of income

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained cash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar, we consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14. 7.1 The assessee is a Private Limited Company and carries on the business as builders and real estate development, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar Group of cases. 7.2 The assessee filed the return of income

M/S. GLOBAL STAR REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained cash receipts tabulated in earlier para. Since the facts are similar, we consider the facts as narrated in AY 2013-14. 7.1 The assessee is a Private Limited Company and carries on the business as builders and real estate development, which belongs to Mr. M.N. Rajendra Kumar Group of cases. 7.2 The assessee filed the return of income

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

unexplained income. Assessee cannot be held responsible for the cash withdrawals of the vendors. 4.23 The ld. A.R. submitted that it has a genuine relationship of buyer and seller with the sellers. The Assessee's role was only to purchase bottles and grapes with the vendors as per the requirement for its business purposes. The Assessee cannot be held responsible