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

41 deduction for an amount of 79,39,000 whereas deduction to the extent of 14,21,432 has been allowed to assessee, hence, assessee remains eligible to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) to the extent of 65,17,568. On a perusal of section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. it is clear that deduction not exceeding twenty

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

Section 36(1)(vii) by Finance Act, 2013 has not changed the proposition of law as it existed before introduction of such explanation. 2.5.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation 2 was introduced to prevent double deduction in the case of same debt for which deduction was allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). 2.6 The learned

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

Section 36(1)(vii) by Finance Act, 2013 has not changed the proposition of law as it existed before introduction of such explanation. 2.5.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation 2 was introduced to prevent double deduction in the case of same debt for which deduction was allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). 2.6 The learned

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS on Raghavan 1,99,46,440 194IA(P) sale of property N Menon CIB-403 Time deposit exceeding - 11,75,035 Rs.2,00,000 The AO after considering the reply of the assessee, concluded the assessment proceedings by holding that the assessee has failed to establish the sources of fund for making cash deposits to the extent of Rs.10

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

41 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nCategory E: 270A case where original return under section\n139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related\nreceipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section\n148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\n- The provisions of section 270A

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related\nreceipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section\n148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\n- The provisions of section 270A

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,CHITRADURGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical

M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,CHITRADURGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,CHITRADURGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,CHITRADURGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) -WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) - WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

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

41,526 24,900 2,104 1,386 69,916 2014-15 46,243 22,176 2,339 1,380 9,418 4,512 86,06 8 2015-16 45,009 16,200 2,250 1,035 64,494 2016-17 1,51,475 36,336 2,167 630 10,299 2,03,255 Davangere: Payment to Sodexo Cash Medical