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

c) In all other cases, the nature of transaction i.e. whether the same is in the nature of capital gain or business income shall continue to be decided, keeping in view the aforesaid circulars issued by the CBDT. 8.1 Therefore, on plain reading of the above it is clear that it is the assessee’s desire how to treat

M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue\nstands dismissed

depreciation and claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act.\nLater, a revised return was filed declaring a gross total income of Rs. 4,37,00,195/- and the total\nincome of Rs. 1,61,03,690/- after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act.\nPage 4 of 23\nITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016\n3.\nOn December

M/S KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as common grounds of law are raised by the assessee

depreciation aggregating to Rs. 76,857 should be deducted from the dividend and if it is so done, the total income would get reduced to Rs. 1,32,955. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. When the matter was ultimately carried to this court, it took note of the opening words of the sub-section, viz., "where

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

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section

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

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section

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

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation' under section

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.

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope

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.

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope

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

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - ITA No.995 & 1079/Bang/2022 Itek Packz, Bangalore Page

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

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - ITA No.995 & 1079/Bang/2022 Itek Packz, Bangalore Page

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with the Assessment Years

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with the Assessment Years

SUBRAMANYA KARTHIK,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

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

C deduction in respect of certain incomes, in SL.No. 2.1 deduction is claimed under Section 80P however return is not filed within due date". Against this observation the assessee 9 Shri Subramanya Karthik filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the writ petition has been dismissed by observing as under: - "7. The scope of an 'intimation

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

80P" 32. The object of the substitution, as explained in para 5 of the CBDT Circular No. 464, dt. 18th July, 1986, was to give the separate deduction, viz., one in respect of rural advances and the 17 ITA Nos.1264 & 1352(B)/13 other for provision for bad and doubtful debts in general and also to extend the benefit

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the commercial banks

ADDL.CIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the commercial banks

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

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the commercial banks

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

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the commercial banks

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

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

c. CIT vs. HDFC Bank (ITA No.250/2012 (Bom.) d. Vijaya Bank (ITA No.687/2008dt.11/3/2013)(Kar.) e. Vijaya Bank (ITA Nos.660, 596 & 747/2011 (ITAT, Bang) 9.4 On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) argued that the circular No.18/2015 of CBDT was issued only in the context of provisions of section 80P of the Act. The same cannot be applied to the commercial banks