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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO\ndisallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA-\n2 and added the amount of ₹5

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5

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

5,16,000/- paid to RBI. M/s. Bank of Baroda 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 115JB are applicable to the bank. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adding various items to arrive at the book-profit which are beyond

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

5,16,000/- paid to RBI. M/s. Bank of Baroda 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 115JB are applicable to the bank. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adding various items to arrive at the book-profit which are beyond

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on the phrase 'derived … from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

5 SCC 626 the Bengal Sales Tax Rules 1941 empowered the Commissioner to revise any assessment within four years from the date of assessment. Subsequently, the State Government issued a notification following the law to extend the time limit from four years to six years from the date of assessment. The extension of the time limit was challenged

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)

5. As per ground No. 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

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

5) 2013-2014 31-3- TOLA not 31-3-2020 30-6-2021 2017 applicable 2014-2015 31-3- TOLA not 31-3-2021 30-6-2021 2018 applicable 2015-2016 31-3- TOLA not 31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable 2019 applicable 2016-2017 31-3- 30-06-2021 31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable

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

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

section 32(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO\ndisallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA-\n2 and added the amount of ₹5

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

5,40,10,049 15 1,73,70,000 81,01,507 92,68493 y & plant Vehicles 11,36,000 10,17,277 15 1,70,400 1,52,592 17,808 Computer 1,55,90,000 92,05,190 60 93,54,000 55,23,114 38,30886 s and Software Intangible

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

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

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides

SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

5)\n2013-2014\n31-3-\n2017\nTOLA not\napplicable\n31-3-2020 30-6-2021\n2014-2015\n31-3-\n2018\nTOLA not\napplicable\n31-3-2021 30-6-2021\n2015-2016\n31-3-\n2019\nTOLA not\napplicable\n31-3-2022 TOLA not applicable\n2016-2017\n31-3-\n2020\n30-06-2021\n31-3-2023 TOLA not applicable\n2017

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.

5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is seen that the assessee claimed the deduction for the employees’ share for depositing the same in the relevant funds beyond the due date as given in Explanation 1 to section 36(1)(va) on the strength of section 43B. The latter section opens with a non-obstante clause and provides