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

10% of the aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such banks. This limit is 5% of gross total income (before deduction under this clause) under sections 36(1)(viia)(b) and 36(1)(viia)(c) for a bank incorporated outside India and certain financial institutions. Provisions of clause (vii) of section 36(1) of the Act provides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

vii) Incentive from airlines amounting to Rs.7,63,88,054 viii) Rental income from BSNL amounting to Rs.12,000 3.2. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the appellant is entitled for the claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act on the above incomes included in the profits of eligible SEZ units. 4. Foreign

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

disallowance of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The facts are that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.14.96 crores as bad debts written off in the computation of income u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It was noticed from the P&L account that nowhere the bad debt was debited

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

disallowance of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The facts are that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.14.96 crores as bad debts written off in the computation of income u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It was noticed from the P&L account that nowhere the bad debt was debited

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

10%, respectively, of the salary cost of CFO & Deputy CFO,\nSVP-Global Head – Taxation and corporate accounting, Treasury Head and\nother employees is not correct having regard to the accounts of the assessee.\nIt is an undisputed fact that the assessee company, having regard to\nexpenses incurred for earning the exempt income, has disallowed a sum of\n\nPage

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.

6. The next issue urged by the revenue relates to the relief granted by Ld CIT(A) in respect of disallowance made u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed deduction towards Provision for bad and doubtful debts (PBDD) u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act as detailed below:- The Karnataka Bank

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

6% No satisfaction recorded by the AO Infosys BPM Ltd v DCIT – ITA No 493/B/2018 decision dated 23.8.2021 ITAT Bangalore deleted the 14A disallowance in the absence of Disallowance under section 14A read 10 to 13 satisfaction by the AO with rule 8D(2)(iii) Without prejudice, ACIT v Vireet Investment (P) Ltd [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 – only actual dividend

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

vii) as these are not received at all. 6. Grounds related to addition on account of Brand Promotion Expenses: 6.1 The learned CIT{A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs 13,76,00,000 in respect of the payment made towards Brand Promotion expenses to Force 6 M/s.United Breweries Limited. India Formula

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

10% of the aggregate average advance made by the rural branches of such banks. This limit is 5% of gross total income (before deduction under this clause) under sections 36(1)(viia)(b) and 36(1)(viia)(c) for a bank incorporated outside India and certain financial institutions.\n\nProvisions of clause (vii) of section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is hereby disallowed (901,62,96,579 – 474,24,85,753). Total disallowance : Rs.427,38,10,826.” 25. On appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is hereby disallowed (901,62,96,579 – 474,24,85,753). Total disallowance : Rs.427,38,10,826.” 25. On appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is hereby disallowed (901,62,96,579 – 474,24,85,753). Total disallowance : Rs.427,38,10,826.” 25. On appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

10% of the aggregate average advance\nmade by the rural branches of such banks. This limit is 5% of\ngross total income (before deduction under this clause) under\nsections 36(1)(viia)(b) and 36(1)(viia)(c) for a bank incorporated\noutside India and certain financial institutions.\nProvisions of clause (vii) of section 36(1) of the Act provides

M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

6] the approval granted shall be subject to the provision of proviso to section 143[3]; [7] the approval shall be void if it is subsequently found that it has been obtained fraud or misappropriation of fact; [8] the above approval is given only for the purpose of sec. 10[23][vi] of the Income

INTERGARDEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Intergarden (India) Private Limited, The Deputy No. 447, Sri Sai Heights, Commissioner Of 17Th Cross, 17Th Main, Vs. Income Tax, 4Th Sector, Hsr Layout, Circle 11 (3), Bangalore, Bangalore. Karnataka – 560 102. Pan: Aaaci7692H Appellant Respondent

6 to 8 of his order. It is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the decision of CIT(A) is on the basis of provisions of section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2) of IT Act but for the purpose of deciding the issue in respect of write off of advances, these sections are not applicable and this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

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

vii) It will, therefore, be more appropriate to hold that funds received from the Government contemplated under Section 10(23c)(iiiab) of the Act must be direct grants/contributions from governmental sources and not fees collected under the statute. The view of the Delhi High Court in Mother Diary Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited vs. Hatim

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRUE NORTH FUND IIIA , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowed by the AO. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the assessee did not sell the unlisted shares of VCU to claim exemption 10(23FB) of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case