M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the amount of bad debts claimed by the assessee was mere provision and not actual write off. Before the AO, the assessee

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as under:- “The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the previous year for these ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 36 of 46 assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1- 4-2003. For the purpose of computing

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as under:- “The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the previous year for these ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 36 of 46 assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1- 4-2003. For the purpose of computing

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. He also observed that the “accounts” would refer to Profit and Loss account only and the assessee has not debited bad debts written off in its profit and loss account

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

253 (Bombay) CIT Vs. B.N.Keshav (ITA No.21/2003 dated: 3rd April, iv) 2008) CIT Vs. Kurban Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR v) 821 (SC) The ld. AR submitted that once the notice is bad in law and d) all the proceedings consequent to the same are also not sustainable in law and the assessment framed under section 153A r.w.s

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

253 ITR 430)(Ker), wherein it was held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act only if the assessee debits the same into the accounts as irrecoverable. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the amount of Rs.172.32 crores claimed by the assessee was mere provision and not actual write off. Before the AO, the assessee

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

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

1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 17.6 She also placed reliance on the order of Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s IDS Next Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA no 510/Bang/2018 wherein it was held as under: “We find that in that case also, the issue involved was regarding

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

1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 17.6 She also placed reliance on the order of Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s IDS Next Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA no 510/Bang/2018 wherein it was held as under: “We find that in that case also, the issue involved was regarding

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

1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 17.6 She also placed reliance on the order of Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s IDS Next Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA no 510/Bang/2018 wherein it was held as under: “We find that in that case also, the issue involved was regarding

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

1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 17.6 She also placed reliance on the order of Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s IDS Next Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA no 510/Bang/2018 wherein it was held as under: “We find that in that case also, the issue involved was regarding

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

1 and 2 are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 17.6 She also placed reliance on the order of Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in case of M/s IDS Next Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT [ITA no 510/Bang/2018 wherein it was held as under: “We find that in that case also, the issue involved was regarding

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253)] 7. That even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law due to absence of the mandatory satisfaction as required u/s 153C(1) of the Act. a. That it is a borrowed satisfaction and has been recorded mechanically without application of mind. b. That the satisfaction recorded

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253)] 7. That even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law due to absence of the mandatory satisfaction as required u/s 153C(1) of the Act. a. That it is a borrowed satisfaction and has been recorded mechanically without application of mind. b. That the satisfaction recorded

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of [the [* * *] [ Inserted by Act 3 of 1989, Section 52.] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case