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

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

vii). Accordingly ground Nos.2.1 to 2.4 are allowed. Ground No.2.5 was not pressed and hence it is dismissed as not pressed. GROUND No. 3 ( 3.1 to 3.2) 18. The appellant bank claimed Rs.58.30 crores as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii). In this regard assessee was asked to substantiate and furnish the working of the deduction claimed. The assessee furnished

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

vii). Accordingly ground Nos.2.1 to 2.4 are allowed. Ground No.2.5 was not pressed and hence it is dismissed as not pressed. GROUND No. 3 ( 3.1 to 3.2) 18. The appellant bank claimed Rs.58.30 crores as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii). In this regard assessee was asked to substantiate and furnish the working of the deduction claimed. The assessee furnished

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

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

M/S. MEDI ASSIST INSURANCE TPA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

1 Secured loans 6 5 5 2 Unsecured loans and other Liabilities 9 B Total liabilities 15 15 15 A - B Net (-)5 93 90 17.9 From the above table it can be seen that the full value of consideration received or accruing to the assessee from the transfer of undertaking (All assets minus All liabilities) is `90. Further

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

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

9,87,94,655 Total 33,01,44,793 23,40,93,115 50,88,11,046 ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 18 of 49 19. According to the AO, section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) allows deduction in computing the income referred to in Section 28 subject to the provisions of sub-section

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

9,87,94,655 Total 33,01,44,793 23,40,93,115 50,88,11,046 ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 18 of 49 19. According to the AO, section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) allows deduction in computing the income referred to in Section 28 subject to the provisions of sub-section

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

vii) of the Act. He submitted that the DRP only adjudicated objection raised by assessee in respect of the payments being ‘Royalty’, but left Page 16 IT(IT)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 the objection regarding payment to be FTS as academic in nature. 14. The Ld.Counsel taxability of services fees received by assessee submitted as under: I Whether payment received

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

1)(vii) of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that payments made by the Appellant to JPCL is for providing services which are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of right. property or information in connection with and for processes and software, and thereby taxable under Article 13(4)(a) and Article

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

1)(vii) of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that payments made by the Appellant to JPCL is for providing services which are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of right. property or information in connection with and for processes and software, and thereby taxable under Article 13(4)(a) and Article

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

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

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

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

capital gains) for (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of or the use of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

M/S. CORPORATION BANK,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

9 to 13) 21. The assessee had made provision and claimed a deduction for Bad and doubtful debts (PBDD) of Rs.992,48,04,092. 21.1. The AO during the course assessment contented that (i) Population of many of the rural branches had already exceeded 10,000 (ii) In several cases it was not rural branche but rather it was situated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ORANGE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FRANCE TELECOM)), FRANCE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 711/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Orange The Deputy (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of France Telecom), Income Tax, 78, Rue Olivaier De Circle – 2(2), Serres, International Paris, Taxation, Vs. France. Bengaluru. Pan: Aacco8859J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri D.S. Karthik, Jcit (Dr)

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

QLIKTECH INTERNATIONAL AB,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No. 173/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expnded and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expnded and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1