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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

iii) The second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 129 (earlier provision 211) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not applicable to the assessee. (iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

iii) The second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 129 (earlier provision 211) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not applicable to the assessee. (iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

iii) The second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 129 (earlier provision 211) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not applicable to the assessee. (iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed

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

capital reserve in the subsequent year should be considered for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viii). An identical issue has been dealt with by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. JCIT (Supra), wherein it is held as under:- “8.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered

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

capital reserve in the subsequent year should be considered for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viii). An identical issue has been dealt with by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. JCIT (Supra), wherein it is held as under:- “8.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital borrowed under Section 36(1)(iii) and that it was not disentitled under Section 40(b)(iv). There is one more way of answering the above contention. Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 40(b)(iv) both deal with payment of interest by the firm for which deduction could be claimed, therefore, keeping in mind the scheme of Chapter

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

capital borrowed for the purpose of business is to be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income. The expression "for purposes of business or profession" occurring in section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is wider in scope than the expression ^For the purpose of earning income, profits or gains

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

36. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue under consideration relates to denial of deduction U/s 54F of the Act to the assessee. It would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 54F of the Act, relevant for the impugned assessment year, which reads as under: Page

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

36,726 D-4 59,322 9,887 49,435 14,831 34,605 TOTAL 71,331 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.5,26,62,915/- against the return income ofRs.5,07,94,880/- under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

36,726 D-4 59,322 9,887 49,435 14,831 34,605 TOTAL 71,331 Thus, the AO completed the assessment proceedings on a total assessed income of Rs.5,26,62,915/- against the return income ofRs.5,07,94,880/- under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/12/2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

36. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Dharamshibhai Somani v. ACIT [(2016) 161 ITD 627 (Ahd. – Trib.)(SMC)](ITA No. 1237/Ahd/2013; AY 2008- 09; order dated 30.9.2016)(Ahd Trib SMC) held that - The present amendment, being an amendment to remove an apparent incongruity which resulted in undue hardships to the taxpayers, should be treated as retrospective

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

36,750\nIndexed cost of Acquistion :\nBase Year Index\n100\nSale Year Index\n276\n[B]\nExpenditure in relation to transfer :\nBetterment fee - Residential uinits\nFees paid for change of land use\nPartition Deed\nOriginal\n54,76,33,980\n9,80,20,137\n-1,08,69,390\n153C