ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

11 of 23 As per the aforesaid paragraph 28.6 of the aforesaid Circular, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the Act the maximum Marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of income, with has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Payment made

DODDABALLAPUR PLANNING AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed as the appellant assessee failed to file Form 9A within the due date. (ii) Section 11(1) explicitly mandates the filing of Form 9A for the accumulation of income for the charitable purpose to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilization of fund for charitable activities. ITA Nos.2115 & 2116/Bang/2024 Doddaballapur Planning Authority, Doddaballapur Page

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

11(vii) relating to allowance of the bad debt(s). In other words, the scheduled commercial banks continue to get the full benefit of the write off of the irrecoverable debt(s) under Section 36(1)(vii) in addition to the benefit of deduction for the provision made for bad and doubtful debt(s) under section 36(1)(viia

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

11(vii) relating to allowance of the bad debt(s). In other words, the scheduled commercial banks continue to get the full benefit of the write off of the irrecoverable debt(s) under Section 36(1)(vii) in addition to the benefit of deduction for the provision made for bad and doubtful debt(s) under section 36(1)(viia

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

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

11 of 46 provision made for bad and doubtful debt(s) under section 36(1)(viia). A reading of the Circulars issued by CBDT indicates that normally a deduction for bad debt(s) can be allowed only if the debt is written off in the books as bad debt(s). No deduction is allowable in respect of a mere provision

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

11 of 46 provision made for bad and doubtful debt(s) under section 36(1)(viia). A reading of the Circulars issued by CBDT indicates that normally a deduction for bad debt(s) can be allowed only if the debt is written off in the books as bad debt(s). No deduction is allowable in respect of a mere provision

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.

D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. ITA No. 1148/Bang/2022 – AY 2019-20 This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.11.2022 for AY 2019-20. 2. The facts are that for the assessment year under consideration the return of income was processed by the CPC and in the intimation issued

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.

D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. ITA No. 1148/Bang/2022 – AY 2019-20 This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 18.11.2022 for AY 2019-20. 2. The facts are that for the assessment year under consideration the return of income was processed by the CPC and in the intimation issued

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

11(1) only applies sections\n40(a)(ia), 40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income\nfrom AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not\napply.\n4.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B\nin respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 1,00,000,\nlabour welfare fund

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

1), RMV Extension, Bangalore. Bangalore. . PAN – AABTS 8147 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri Balachandran, Advocate, Revenue by : Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 19.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

1), RMV Extension, Bangalore. Bangalore. . PAN – AABTS 8147 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri Balachandran, Advocate, Revenue by : Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 19.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed

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

11,02,609/-\nonly.\n22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the\nvaluation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill\nappeared artificial and unjustified. According to the AO, the Finacle and\nEdge-services business was primarily dependent on employees who were\ntransferred along with the business, and the skills, technical know-how\nand experience resided with such employees

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. ITA No. 2396 and 2397/Bangalore/2024 are filed by the assessee against the appellate orders passed by The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – (A) – 4, Chennai (the learned CIT – A) dated 28 June 2024 for both these assessment years wherein the appeals filed against the assessment order passed under section

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT: 1. ITA No. 2396 and 2397/Bangalore/2024 are filed by the assessee against the appellate orders passed by The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – (A) – 4, Chennai (the learned CIT – A) dated 28 June 2024 for both these assessment years wherein the appeals filed against the assessment order passed 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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.1.2023 for the AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.1.2023 for the AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos.294 to 296/Bang/2023 are directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 12.1.2023 for the AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these

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

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These five appeals filed at the instance of the assessee, are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the Ld. CIT(A)) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2021-22, which were heard together

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

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These five appeals filed at the instance of the assessee, are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the Ld. CIT(A)) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2021-22, which were heard together