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

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

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

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

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

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

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

gains derived from the unit situated in Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It only prescribes that an unit which is situated in SEZ begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services which are exported is eligible to claim deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the activity of the assessee-company does

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

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

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: . ITA No.1495 - 1499/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question

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

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: . ITA No.1495 - 1499/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess. Explanation.—In this clause,— (a) “specified entity” means,— (i) a financial corporation specified in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (ii) a financial corporation which is a public sector company; (iii) a banking

M/S. SHRI MAHISHASURAMARDINI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS , BAGALKOT vs. SHRI PRABHAYYA BASAYYA SARAGANACHANI , BAGALKOT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. Prabhayya Basayya Saragachari, At. Muchakhandi Tq & Ward 1 & Tps, Dist. – Bagalkot – 587 102. Bagalkot. Pan : Doips 6443 L Appellant Respondent

capital asset and cannot be taxed under section 56(2)(viii) relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 (SC) which was applicable on the issue prior to A.Y. 2010-11 before the amendment to section 56 of the I.T. Act, 1961. (3) The leanred CIT(Appeals

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, SHIVAMOGGA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri A.K.Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Purdal Road, Ward-3, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga-577 201 Shivamogga-577 205 Pan No: Akkpl 6281 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : K.R.Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.3.2019 Of The Cit(Appeals), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which This Appeal Arise For 2. Consideration Are That The Assessee Owned Agricultural Lands Measuring 6.8 Acres In Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk Which Was Compulsorily Acquired By The Special Land Acquisition Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Slao”], Under The Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Vide Notification Dated 22.9.2000. Aggrieved By The Award As Originally Passed Awarding Compensation For The Land Acquired By The Govt., Page 2 Of 12

Capital gain” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, shall be exempted, where : 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in, item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2 2. Such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), DHARWAD vs. SHRI VINAYAK HARI PALLED , HUBBALLI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

Capital gain” arising from the transfer of agricultural land, shall be exempted, where : 1. Such land is situate in any area referred to in, item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2 2. Such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

194A[1] of the Act would not be made applicable. In other words, if no income is attributable to the payee, there is no liability to deduct tax at source in the hands of the tax deductor. In view of the admitted fact that interest being not paid to the payees [suppliers] being reversed in the books of account

MR.M.J ARAVIND,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2012-13

capitalized on the various investments that he is holding so that the necessary claim can be made when the said investment are transferred and tax liability arises in accordance with the scheme of the Act. Page 9 of 15 Table 1: Amount in Rs. Particulars As at March As at March 31,2012 31, 2011 1. INVESTMENT IN INDIAN SECURITIES

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

194A of the act , the tax should have been deducted by the assessee bank at the time of making payment to political parties. Even otherwise the income of political party is exempt under section 13 A of the act is also subject to the condition that such income should be chargeable to tax under the head income from house property

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

capital at risk (or) take any other strategic decisions. Accordingly, no single promoter group has "control/influence" over decisions of the board. Based on the above facts, our tax auditors have also not considered Force India as an associated enterprise of UBL. Consequently, we request your good self not to consider Force India as an Associated Enterprise of United breweries Limited

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

Capital Gains of Rs.2,02,95,269 being ¼ th share of compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and has claimed exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, subsequently the Notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1 that assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, as there is no prohibition under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, for admission of nominal members. Further, as regards the interest income received from Co-operative Societies, the CIT(A) held that the same is to be assessed as "Income from Other