ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , 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

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

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income

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

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

253/- towards alleged undisclosed scrap sale. 6. The learned Commissioner (A)ought to have refrained from upholding the computation of capital gains on the transfer of property to M/s.Gopalan Enterprises. 7. On the facts the learned Commissioner (A) ought to have allowed the cost of purchase of steel claimed by the appellant while computing the capital gains. 8. The learned

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

capital gain has been earned by sale of share as penny stock. After recording of reasons and taking necessary approval from the competent authorities as per extended date by the CBDT, the approval was granted and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply on 30.10.2023 and the assessee also furnished reply

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 Unexplained opening capital 33.29 2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 Unexplained opening capital 33.29 2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 Unexplained opening capital 33.29 2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 Unexplained opening capital 33.29 2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 Unexplained opening capital 33.29 2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1 Unexplained opening capital 33.29 2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts in the case

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts in the case

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

1,92,73,157 Less: Exemptions Invested Date Amount Exemption 54 F Transfer of property other than house property 85,66,165 85,60,904 54 EC. Investment in bonds 50,00,000 50,00,000 Taxable Capital gain 57,12,253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

1,92,73,157 Less: Exemptions Invested Date Amount Exemption 54 F Transfer of property other than house property 85,66,165 85,60,904 54 EC. Investment in bonds 50,00,000 50,00,000 Taxable Capital gain 57,12,253 6. As can be seen from the aforesaid computation of capital gain by both the assessees, they

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

sections 115, 44AC, etc. (iii) The reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. ( supra) is misplaced since that case concerns allowance of losses on re-statement of existing currency assets and liabilities. In the case on hand, it relates only to future sales transactions without certainty of valuation

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