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

B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M/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

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

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

149 and 151 has been substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and there is no saving clause envisaged under the new provision to continue with the proceedings initiated under the erstwhile provisions of the Act, thus the order passed is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case b. Grounds on sanction accorded under section

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

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

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 119(2)(b

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

149 dated AUGUST 9, 2021 in SLP LEAVE (C) NO.7351 OF 2021, against the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the issue should be decided in favour of the revenue. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the from the judgments quoted by the assessee (supra

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

149 dated AUGUST 9, 2021 in SLP LEAVE (C) NO.7351 OF 2021, against the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the issue should be decided in favour of the revenue. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the from the judgments quoted by the assessee (supra

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

149 dated AUGUST 9, 2021 in SLP LEAVE (C) NO.7351 OF 2021, against the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the issue should be decided in favour of the revenue. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the from the judgments quoted by the assessee (supra

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

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

b)(c) of the Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search. Therefore this issue is rejected. Assessee has challenged before us regarding depreciation claimed on the goodwill arising out of the business transfer as per agreement dated 01.04.2012 where

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

b)(c) of the Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search. Therefore this issue is rejected. Assessee has challenged before us regarding depreciation claimed on the goodwill arising out of the business transfer as per agreement dated 01.04.2012 where

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

b)(c) of the Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search. Therefore this issue is rejected. Assessee has challenged before us regarding depreciation claimed on the goodwill arising out of the business transfer as per agreement dated 01.04.2012 where

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

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

b)(c) of\nthe Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the\nlearned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search.\nTherefore this issue is rejected. Assessee has challenged before us regarding\ndepreciation claimed on the goodwill arising out of the business transfer as\nper agreement dated 01.04.2012 where

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

b)(c) of\nthe Act on this point we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the\nlearned DR that we do not have power to decide the validity of search.\nTherefore this issue is rejected. Assessee has challenged before us regarding\ndepreciation claimed on the goodwill arising out of the business transfer as\nper agreement dated 01.04.2012 where