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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

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

M/S. BANK OF BARODA(ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT, LTU, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.234/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year: 2015-16\Nm/S. Bank Of Baroda (Erstwhile\Nvijaya Bank)\N2Nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Centre\Nbandra Kurla Complex\Nbandra (East)\Nmumbai 400 051\Npan No: Aaacv4791J\Nappellant\Nvs.\Naddl. Cit\Nltu\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\N:\Nsmt. Lalitha Rameshwaran, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nsri Rajashekhar M., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N03.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N04.04.2025\No R D E R\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 23.12.2024 Vide Din & Order\Nno. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071453089(1) Passed U/S 250 Of\Nthe Act (In Short “The Act”) For The Ay 2015-16.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Law & Facts Of The Case.\N2. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.\N2.

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

capital asset. Respectfully following the same, we direct the disallowance to be deleted. 13. Ground No.26: Disallowance of Commission paid Rs.23,68,35,533/- 13.1. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee generates substantial part of its business from overseas clients, mainly from the North American, European and Asia Pacific markets. It is submitted that, in order to procure new business