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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

2 of the section 37(1) of the Act which clarifies that the\nexpenditure incurred by an assessee on the Corporate Social Responsibility shall not be\ndeemed to be an expenditure for the purpose of business or profession.\nvii. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law to by deleting addition of Rs.2,02,00,000/- made by the\nA.O

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

2 to section 37 to disallow above expenditure incurred by the assessee. Explanation (2) to section 37 reads as follows

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

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 119(2)(b) of\nthe Income

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)

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) of\nthe Income

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 to section 37 to disallow above expenditure incurred by the assessee. Explanation (2) to section 37 reads as follows

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 to section 37 to disallow above expenditure incurred by the assessee. Explanation (2) to section 37 reads as follows

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

disallowances made on account of provision for doubtful debts and delayed deposit of employee . Page 37 of 38 welfare contributions merely result in enhancement of business income. The Ld. AR further contended that such enhanced income continues to be eligible for deduction under section 80P(2

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

2. The impugned disallowance of Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nis bad being vague, without proper reasons, purely ad-hoc\nand being based on one isolated finding in one branch i.e.\nKarkala in respect of Rs.1,80,000/-, particularly when the\nsaid figure appears to be a balancing figure in the offer of\nRs.60 Crores as extracted from the appellant under

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

2)(d), otherwise to be treated as 'Income from other sources'. The disallowance of Guarantee Commission under Section 43B was remanded to the AO for verification under Section 37

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

37(1) of the Act.\nAY:2015-\nAccordingly grounds raised on this issue for\n16,2016-17 & 2017-18 in grounds mentioned herein above\nstands allowed for statistical purposes.\n19. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS\nThis issue arises only in ITA No.1058/Bang/2023 for AY 2017-18\nin ground no. 10.\n19.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the assessing officer ought

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance will only go to increase the income for\nwhich deduction should be allowed under section 80P(2)(a)(i),\nresulting in no variation to the assessee's income.\nThe Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate\nbench of this Tribunal in case of State Financial Corporation v.\nACIT reported in (2021) 133 taxmann.com 394, wherein

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

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

section\n14A, read with rule\n8D-Commissioner (Appeals)\nrestricted disallowance to\nRs.13.46 lakhs which was\nsustained by Tribunal - On\nappeal to High Court it was\nfound that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly taken\ninto account investments\nother than investments\nmade to earn exempt\nincome - Commissioner\n(Appeals) had correctly\napplied formula prescribed\nunder rule 8D(2)(iii) -\nWhether thus, no\nsubstantial

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance of its claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and (d) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee was not a primary agricultural credit society and was hit by Section 80P(4) of the Act, denying the claim.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society registered under

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

37(1) of the Act.\nAY:2015-\nAccordingly grounds raised on this issue for\n16,2016-17 & 2017-18 in grounds mentioned herein above\nstands allowed for statistical purposes.\n19. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS\nThis issue arises only in ITA No.1058/Bang/2023 for AY 2017-18\nin ground no. 10.\n19.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the assessing officer ought

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

37(1) of the Act.\nAY:2015-\nAccordingly grounds raised on this issue for\n16,2016-17 & 2017-18 in grounds mentioned herein above\nstands allowed for statistical purposes.\n19. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS\nThis issue arises only in ITA No.1058/Bang/2023 for AY 2017-18\nin ground no. 10.\n19.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the assessing officer ought

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a bank under the Banking Regulation Act and thus Section 80P(4) does not apply. It allowed deduction for interest earned from credit facilities extended to members (including nominal/associate members) under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, interest earned from loans to employees was to be treated as income from

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

disallowance will only go to increase the income for\nwhich deduction should be allowed under section 80P(2)(a)(i),\nresulting in no variation to the assessee's income.\nThe Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate\nbench of this Tribunal in case of State Financial Corporation v.\nACIT reported in (2021) 133 taxmann.com 394, wherein

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

37(1) of the Act.\nAY:2015-\nAccordingly grounds raised on this issue for\n16,2016-17 & 2017-18 in grounds mentioned herein above\nstands allowed for statistical purposes.\n19. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS\nThis issue arises only in ITA No.1058/Bang/2023 for AY 2017-18\nin ground no. 10.\n19.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the assessing officer ought