“Section 36(1)”

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

payable to Chairman and MD and wholetime Director and CFO is concerned, the AO examined the claim for deduction under section 36(1)(ii) of the Act which provides that any sum paid to employee as bonus or commission for services rendered would not be allowed as a deduction where ... because the payees were identified and paid in the subsequent Assessment Year to the MD and WTD. The AO invoked the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act and concluded that the MD and WTD were getting regular pay and the additional pay were not for any services

M/S. Zion Hospitals and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Zion Hospitals & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 9, “Le Villa”, Commissioner Of Kirti Layout, Income Tax, Kammanahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 084. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacz4369G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.08.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Loss Of Appellant In The Intimation U/S. 143[1] Of The Act, At Rs. 63,89,502/-As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.

learned CIT[A] / NFAC is not justified in holding that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to the provisions of section 36[1][va] of the Act and the insertion of Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01/04/2021 ... remitted within the due date as mentioned in the respective Acts. The CIT(A) also relied on the amendment brought about to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The Ld.AR submitted that an identical issue

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the amendment 2 Sri.S.N.Balasubramaniya. brought vide Finance Act, 2021 in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act and Explanation 5 to section 43B of the Act are retrospective in nature even though CBDT has clarified ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Technocon Builders, The Deputy # 337, Sf 8, Commissioner Of Karuna Complex, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Circle - 2 (2)(1), Malleshwaram, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Aaift3196L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajagopal, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2021 U/S. 250 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2019-20 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Without Jurisdiction, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

paid by the employer in the capacity of employer. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts, by applying section 36(1)(va) instead of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred, in law and in facts ... addition made by the Ld. AO in his order by taking recourse to the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to the section 43B which takes effect from 1st April 2021 and is applicable to the AY 2021-22onwards

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

jurisdictional High Court to confirm the disallowance despite there being contrary judgments of the jurisdictional High Court. (f) Holding that, the amendment to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B brought in by Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective, clarificatory and declaratory in nature. And erred in thus confirming the disallowance ... Coin Health 4 M/s.Karle Infrastructure Private Limited Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal

M/S. Corporation Bank, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

rural debts written off were not adjusted with provisions allowed a/c. u/s.36(1)(viia) in view of the first provisio to section 36(1)(vii) r.e.s. 36(2)(v) 13.2. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the order ... double deduction. In our view, both AO as well as ld. CIT(A) have committed fundamental error by mixing up provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia). While 36(1)(vii) speaks of actual write off of bad debts in the books of account, section 36(1

Ikon Labels Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2018-19 M/S. Karnataka State Electronics Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Ttmc “A” Block, Cpc, Bengaluru. Bmtc, Shanthinagar, K. H. Road, Bengaluru–560 027. Pan : Aabck 6661 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R

judgment is binding on the assessee and department. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in relying on the amendment made in section 36(1)(va) though the said amendment is applicable from the AY 2021-22 and onwards. In the recent Judgment by Hyderabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ... case of Value Momentum Software Services Private Limited (order dated 19.05.2021) it has been held that the amended provisions of section 36(1)(va) has no application since this amendment is applicable from 01.04.2021 onwards and it is further held that it should be understood that the legislature itself

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

computed under the head 'Profits & gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under its clause) carried to such reserve account" 22. Section 36(1)(viii) envisages a transfer to a special reserve inorder to claim deduction under the said section. The issues to be considered here ... where the Tribunal has held that “53. It is the contention of the assessee before us that as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viii) assessee is eligible for ITA Nos.1834/Bang/2018 & 1839/Bang/2018 Page 15 of 41 deduction for an amount of 79,39,000 whereas deduction to the extent

Radius Engineering Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

Technocon Builders, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause (va) of section 36(1) of the Income-tax Act further makes it very clear that the amount actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable

Channa Keshava, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

1) proceedings. 2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the amendment by way of explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and explanation 5 to the section 43B made in the finance Act 2021 has retrospective effect as such the decisions relied on by the appellant are not applicable ... case of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 308 (SC), the CIT(A) concluded that amendment to section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021, is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal