ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

3) of section 194A, deals with such entities. The said clause reads as under:- iii) to such income credited or paid to- (a) any banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies, or any co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking (including a co-operative land mortgage bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

3) of ITA Nos.1154/Bang/2023 & ITA 210, 222 & 297/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank., Bangalore Page 25 of 40 section 194A, deals with such entities. The said clause reads as under:- iii) to such income credited or paid to- (a) any banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies, or any co-operative society engaged in carrying

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 16(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 194A of the Act. It had every reason to hold a bonafide belief that it was not liable to deduct tax at source on the interest payments effected by it to the Board. Especially so since Board gave all details to the assessee as to how it was constituted and also explained

M/S KANYAKAPARAMESHWARI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Kanyakaparameshwari Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Co-Operative Bank Limited, Income-Tax, K. R. Circle, Circle – 1[1], Mysuru – 570 001. Mysuru. Pan : Aacas 1220 M Appellant Respondent

iii) Interest received in earlier year excluded 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 25.03.2015 for Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), Mysuru raising various grounds / additional grounds. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 28.02.2018. 3.1 The assessee, being aggrieved by the order

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,,MYSORE vs. ITO, MYSORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

194A(3)(iii)(f) would be admissible to an assessee who made payments to a company whose shares are held by the Govt. or held by the RBI or held by the corporation owned by RBI. Thereafter the Assessing Officer took into consideration the shareholding pattern of KUIDFC in Paragraph No.5.6 of the impugned order. The details read as under

M/S. VASAVI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS will not apply to the interest given to the associate members. The A.O. also took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Citizen Co-operative Society Vs. ACIT (Civil Appeal Noi.10245 of 2017) and observed that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly classifies members

M/S. VASAVI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD- 3(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS will not apply to the interest given to the associate members. The A.O. also took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Citizen Co-operative Society Vs. ACIT (Civil Appeal Noi.10245 of 2017) and observed that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly classifies members

MR. SANDEEP SAMANTHA,MANGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Sandeep Samantha, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of D.No.2-1-7/7, Shop No.2, Income-Tax, Manasa Residency, Chilimbi, Urwa, Cpc- Tds, Mangaluru – 575 006. Ghaziabad. Pan : Axlps 5874 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, Add. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Mangaluru Dated 16.01.2019 For Assessment Year 2016-17 In Respect Of Filing Of Form No.26Q For Quarter No.1 Of The Financial Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

TDS u/s 194IA. From No. 26QB and challan of tax deposited were generated on 5.4.2014 from the electronic system which is evident from the orders passed, which clearly mentions the date of filing of challan cum statement as "5.4.2014". Thus, levy of fee u/s 234E is not applicable at all, because there is no delay in filing of the said

M/S. OZONE URBAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS, CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Tds, No.30, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru North, Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 042. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecm 5394 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

3. The assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). Page 5 of 18 The issue of non-remittance of TDS 4. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and explained that the assessee is in serious financial crisis due to which the TDS deducted could not be remitted

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iii) of sub-section (4) of section 10AA of the Act which provides that the SEZ units should not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business or should not be formed by transfer to a new business of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose. 16. In rebuttal, the assessee-company had made submission that platform

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iii) of sub-section (4) of section 10AA of the Act which provides that the SEZ units should not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business or should not be formed by transfer to a new business of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose. 16. In rebuttal, the assessee-company had made submission that platform

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iii) of sub-section (4) of section 10AA of the Act which provides that the SEZ units should not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business or should not be formed by transfer to a new business of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose. 16. In rebuttal, the assessee-company had made submission that platform

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iii) of sub-section (4) of section 10AA of the Act which provides that the SEZ units should not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the existing business or should not be formed by transfer to a new business of Plant & Machinery previously used for any purpose. 16. In rebuttal, the assessee-company had made submission that platform