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 Rs 5,16,000/- paid to RBI. M/s. Bank of Baroda 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that provisions of Section 115JB are applicable to the bank. 8. Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in adding various items to arrive at the book-profit which

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

1) and (5) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that the amounts mentioned in clauses (a) to (i) of Explanation to section 115JB(2) are debited to the statement of profit and loss account, then only the provisions of section 115JB would apply. The disallowance under section

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

1) and (5) of section 115JB of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that the amounts mentioned in clauses (a) to (i) of Explanation to section 115JB(2) are debited to the statement of profit and loss account, then only the provisions of section 115JB would apply. The disallowance under section

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

23,43,57,000,\nwhereas the total expenditure claimed by the assessee was\n*1,25,59,57,776. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that weighted\ndeduction under section 35(2AB) can be allowed only to the extent of\nexpenditure expressly approved and quantified by DSIR and not beyond\nthat amount.\n51.3 The learned CIT(A) specifically observed that

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5,69,16,52,215/- to the total income of the assessee. The assessee’s alternative claim for enhanced deduction under section 10AA of the Act on account of increased profits was also rejected for want

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5,69,16,52,215/- to the total income of the assessee. The assessee’s alternative claim for enhanced deduction under section 10AA of the Act on account of increased profits was also rejected for want

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the depreciation claimed on intangible assets in relation BTA- 2 and added the amount of ₹5,69,16,52,215/- to the total income of the assessee. The assessee’s alternative claim for enhanced deduction under section 10AA of the Act on account of increased profits was also rejected for want

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

disallowance was made. 21. In the rejoinder the learned authorized representative reiterated the submissions already made and submitted that it is not the issue of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court but it is the issue whether adjustment under section 143 (1) (a) of the act can be made with respect to the employees' contribution of provident fund

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

disallowance was made. 21. In the rejoinder the learned authorized representative reiterated the submissions already made and submitted that it is not the issue of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court but it is the issue whether adjustment under section 143 (1) (a) of the act can be made with respect to the employees' contribution of provident fund

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K

section 23(1)(a) of the I.T.Act invoked by the CIT(A). Since the lease rental received for the relevant assessment year being `Nil’, the same has to be adopted instead of ALV as ordered by the CIT(A). Further, the lease rental received by the assessee from 01.06.2016 was disclosed under the head “income from house property

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii), has been distinguished by tribunals on the grounds that the specific legal argument regarding the effective date of Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not fully considered. Therefore, the decisions of coordinate benches also bind me. 21. However as honourable Madras high court has considered the whole section, reproducing it, being binding precedents

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii), has been distinguished by tribunals on the grounds that the specific legal argument regarding the effective date of Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not fully considered. Therefore, the decisions of coordinate benches also bind me. 21. However as honourable Madras high court has considered the whole section, reproducing it, being binding precedents

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii), has been distinguished by tribunals on the grounds that the specific legal argument regarding the effective date of Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not fully considered. Therefore, the decisions of coordinate benches also bind me. 21. However as honourable Madras high court has considered the whole section, reproducing it, being binding precedents

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

section 36(1)(iii), it was stated by the AO that the disallowance of Rs. 20,11,358 will Page 14 of 17 be enforced based on the adverse findings (if any) by the appellate authorities at a later stage. 23

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

section 36(1)(iii), it was stated by the AO that the disallowance of Rs. 20,11,358 will Page 14 of 17 be enforced based on the adverse findings (if any) by the appellate authorities at a later stage. 23

GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees' contribution

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

23 of 37 intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and was not a variation proposed by the AO in the draft assessment order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act. The learned DRP noted that the CPC determined the disallowance

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

23,99,134. However, he noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dealt only with interest expenditure and not direct administrative expenses. He also observed that the ITAT decisions relied on by the Bank deal only with recording of dissatisfaction by the AO and as such are not applicable. He therefore, upheld the disallowance made

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

23 of 40 51. The main crux of the department is that since assessee bank has come into existence by the „Acquisition Act‟ and Section 11 thereof states that for the purpose of Income Tax Act, ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 41 every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian