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 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

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 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

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

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

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(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

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

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

TELEFONICA DE ESPANA SA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

vii) of the Act (as Ground no 3 Ground no 3 Ground no 3. 'royalty' and 'fees for and 4 - and 4- 3,4,5,and 6 - technical services') and under Pressed Pressed Pressed Article 13 of India-Spain DTAA 5. Interest under section 234A, Ground no 5- Ground no 5- Ground no 7- 23B & 234C Pressed Pressed Pressed Ground

M/S. TELEFONICA DE ESPANA SA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

vii) of the Act (as Ground no 3 Ground no 3 Ground no 3. 'royalty' and 'fees for and 4 - and 4- 3,4,5,and 6 - technical services') and under Pressed Pressed Pressed Article 13 of India-Spain DTAA 5. Interest under section 234A, Ground no 5- Ground no 5- Ground no 7- 23B & 234C Pressed Pressed Pressed Ground

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed and all the stay petitions filed by the assessee\nstands dismissed as infructuous

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

M/S. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2010-11 M/S. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. Pan: Aagct6780P Appellant Respondent & It(It)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ti Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner Of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four, (International 6 Temasek Boulevard, Taxation), Singapore – 038986 Circle – 2(2), Vs. Pan: Aagct6780P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

Capital gains") for— Page 11 IT(IT)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 & 1138/Bang/2022 (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

M/S. TELECOM ITALIA SPARKLE SINGAPORE PTE. LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2010-11 M/S. Telecom Italia The Deputy Sparkle Singapore Pte. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 23-01, Suntec Tower (International Four, Taxation), 6 Temasek Boulevard, Vs. Circle – 2(1), Singapore – 038986 Bangalore. Pan: Aagct6780P Appellant Respondent & It(It)A No. 1138/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ti Sparkle The Deputy Singapore Pte. Ltd., Commissioner Of 23-01, Suntec Tower Income Tax, Four, (International 6 Temasek Boulevard, Taxation), Singapore – 038986 Circle – 2(2), Vs. Pan: Aagct6780P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

Capital gains") for— Page 11 IT(IT)A Nos. 579 & 580/Bang/2020 & 1138/Bang/2022 (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

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered