M/S THE RADDI SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, HUBLI

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed, while the stay petitions are dismissed

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

section 51 of that Act); (b) ten thousand rupees, where the payer is a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of banking; (c) ten thousand rupees, on any deposit with post office under any scheme framed by the Central Government and notified by it in this behalf; and (d) five thousand rupees in any other case

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 7 of 20 7. Ground No.4 of the appeal is with regard to the applicability of the provisions

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

disallows certain expenditures\nincurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other\nincomes which is includable in the total income for the purposes of\nchargeability to the Lax. It i4 equally well settled that expenditure is a\npay out. In order to attract applicability of section 14,4 of the Act, there\nhas

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

iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be Indian company and a company in which public is substantially interested". (v) It is settled principle of law where deeming fiction is created

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises (vii) any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. So far as claim of depreciation in case of intangible assets falling in the category of "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" is concerned, all the business or commercial rights are not by themselves assets eligible for depreciation, and that only

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iv) “relevant assessment year” means any assessment year falling within a period of fifteen consecutive assessment years referred to in this section; (v) “Special Economic Zone” and “Unit” shall have the same meanings as assigned to them under clauses (za) and (zc)27 of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iv) “relevant assessment year” means any assessment year falling within a period of fifteen consecutive assessment years referred to in this section; (v) “Special Economic Zone” and “Unit” shall have the same meanings as assigned to them under clauses (za) and (zc)27 of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iv) “relevant assessment year” means any assessment year falling within a period of fifteen consecutive assessment years referred to in this section; (v) “Special Economic Zone” and “Unit” shall have the same meanings as assigned to them under clauses (za) and (zc)27 of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iv) “relevant assessment year” means any assessment year falling within a period of fifteen consecutive assessment years referred to in this section; (v) “Special Economic Zone” and “Unit” shall have the same meanings as assigned to them under clauses (za) and (zc)27 of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

UNITED BREWERIES LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

iv) to Sec. 194H and Explanation 1 to sec. 195, which states that even if the sums referred to under these provisions are credited to any account, whether called ‘Suspense Account’ or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such account

BSR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

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

iv) The ITAT Mumbai 'D' Bench (70 ITD 109) (Mumbai) in the case of Corrosion Control Services (Bombay) (P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, held that “Assessee followed mercantile system; retention money was deducted from contract receipts; entire amount of bill did not become due immediately upon its submission; 5 or 10% of the bill amounts were withheld

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi ) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;” 35. Under Section 194A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi ) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;” 11. Under Section 194A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi ) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;” 11. Under Section 194A

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

disallowed. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of interest paid under Section 201(1A) for delayed payment of TDS as the same is compensatory and not penal in character. In this connection reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills