EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

1 2508,44,10,4 -17 9 80 79 45 34 2017 2508,44,10,4 - 2508,44,10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

1 2508,44,10,4 -17 9 80 79 45 34 2017 2508,44,10,4 - 2508,44,10,4 627,11,02,6 1881,33,07,8 -18 34 34 09 25 21.1 Thus, during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation on the WDV of the intangible assets for Rs. 627,11,02,609/- only. 22. During

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10(1), Bangalore prior to 2.5.2013. Consequent to order ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 24 of 64 u/s. 127 dated 2.5.2013, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to DCIT, Circle 2(1) / ACIT 4(2)(1), Bangalore. Subsequently, based on CBDT Notification dated 22.10.2014, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to be assessed u/s. PCIT-4, Bangalore. Afterwards, there

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10(1), Bangalore prior to 2.5.2013. Consequent to order ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 24 of 64 u/s. 127 dated 2.5.2013, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to DCIT, Circle 2(1) / ACIT 4(2)(1), Bangalore. Subsequently, based on CBDT Notification dated 22.10.2014, the jurisdiction of the assessee was changed to be assessed u/s. PCIT-4, Bangalore. Afterwards, there

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10 of 24 of the Act was issued on 04/03/2024 and accordingly the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 10/04/2024. Thereafter, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued for the AY 2017-18 on 12/04/2024. It is also an undisputed fact that the last date for issuing the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 of appeal, the appellant has challenged the action taken by Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, stating that "the notice was issued without proper and 10 sufficient basis and also the reasons for issuing notice for withdrawing the depreciation

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

1)(viia) 4. The first issue relates to the disallowance of depreciation claimed on Investments held to Maturity. The AO noticed that the assessee has revalued the investments held to maturity as at the yearend and the fall in the value was claimed as depreciation in their value amounting to Rs.436.81 crores as deduction. The AO noticed that

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

10 days allowed to assessee to give response/ objection needs to be excluded. Further as per 6th proviso a period of 7 days also need to be excluded. The assessing officer has passed the order u/s. 148A(d) on 29/04/2022 and issued the notice u/s. 148 on 29/04/2022, which very well falls within the limitation period. In this regard

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

depreciation on intangible assets.\n20.\nThe relevant facts are that the assessee company entered 2\ndifferent business transferred agreement (BTA) with its holding company\nInfosys Ltd. The first BTA was entered as on 1st July 2014 i.e. during the\nF.Y. 2014-15 for transfer of Edge suit of product division for a\nconsideration of Rs. 421 crores. The second

M/S. NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication confined

SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication confined

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication confined

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication confined

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication confined

MASS FAB TECHNOLOGIES,BANGALORE vs. CIT(APPEALS), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication confined

ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication confined