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 SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed a sum of Rs.1387,81,80,315/- out of total claim of Rs.1695,59,52,309/-. The assessee bank contended before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no requirement in Section 36(1)(viia) that the provision should be in relation to rural advances. Further, it was contended that the reliance placed by the learned Assessing Officer

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

1) of the\nPage 37 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nact.\n2\n[2017] 87\nТахтапn.Com 244\n(Karnataka)\nSharavathy\nConductors (P.)\nLtd.\nV.\nChief\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Тах,\nBengaluru-2*\nAssesse cited case deals\nwith condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section

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

disallowed the deduction on the ground that (i) the assessee has not actually written off the bad debts in the individual loan accounts, & (ii) the assessee did not charge the amount of bad debts written off to the provision for bad ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 8 of 31 and doubtful debts account, though there was sufficient credit balance

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

disallowed the deduction on the ground that (i) the assessee has not actually written off the bad debts in the individual loan accounts, & (ii) the assessee did not charge the amount of bad debts written off to the provision for bad ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 8 of 31 and doubtful debts account, though there was sufficient credit balance

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

disallowed the deduction on the ground that (i) the assessee has not actually written off the bad debts in the individual loan accounts, & (ii) the assessee did not charge the amount of bad debts written off to the provision for bad ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 8 of 31 and doubtful debts account, though there was sufficient credit balance

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

disallowed in terms of explanation to\nsection 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income.\n6.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned\nCITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after\nconsidering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\n7.\nAggrieved from the Order

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallow above expenditure incurred by the assessee. Explanation (2) to section 37 reads as follows:- “Explanation 2. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of sub-section (1), any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." Following the decision rendered by the coordinate

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." Following the decision rendered by the coordinate

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

disallow above expenditure incurred by the assessee. Explanation (2) to section 37 reads as follows:- ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 70 “Explanation 2. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of sub-section (1), any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

disallow above expenditure incurred by the assessee. Explanation (2) to section 37 reads as follows:- ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 70 “Explanation 2. — For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of sub-section (1), any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

disallowance of “building under construction” expenses—\nwere made contrary to the facts on record, showing that even the\napproving authority had not noticed the basic accounting treatment.\n\n17.7 The ld. AR relied on several judicial precedents to support his\nargument that mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act\ninvalidates the assessment. He cited the decision

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

1) of the\nPage 37 of 74\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\n2\n[2017] 87\nТахтапn.Com 244\n(Karnataka)\nact.\nSharavathy\nConductors (P.)\nLtd.\nV.\nChief\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax,\nBengaluru-2*\nAssesse cited case deals\nwith condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

disallowance of “building under construction” expenses—\nwere made contrary to the facts on record, showing that even the\napproving authority had not noticed the basic accounting treatment.\n17.7 The ld. AR relied on several judicial precedents to support his\nargument that mechanical approval under section 153D of the Act\ninvalidates the assessment. He cited the decision

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-12, under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2. The appellant denies himself to be assessed at Rs. 83,17,454/- as against