DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) totally amounting to Rs.3,30,96,246/-, considering the average value of investments made in mutual funds and shares of Infosys BPM Ltd. After reducing the amount already disallowed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) totally amounting to Rs.3,30,96,246/-, considering the average value of investments made in mutual funds and shares of Infosys BPM Ltd. After reducing the amount already disallowed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

disallowing the claim of deduction of INR 1,12,23,296 under section 8oG of the Act by holding that amount paid out of Corporate Social Responsibility ('CSR') expenditure is ineligible for such deduction. 3. That the learned AO erred in stating that the amounts paid to eligible entities specified in section 8oG of the Act as a part

CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

246 (Karnataka)[04-02-2014] . If those decisions are applied the above sum would not have been disallowed under the jurisdiction of Honourable Karnataka High court. However, it is an undisputed fact that the central processing Centre has made that adjustment under the provisions of section 143 (1

CAE SIMULATION TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

246 (Karnataka)[04-02-2014] . If those decisions are applied the above sum would not have been disallowed under the jurisdiction of Honourable Karnataka High court. However, it is an undisputed fact that the central processing Centre has made that adjustment under the provisions of section 143 (1

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

1) of the\nConstitution. It is submitted that, section 43B contemplates that,\na law must levy a tax, duty, cess or fee, and that there is no such\nlevy in the case of a guarantee commission. The Ld.AR thus\nsubmitted that Section 43B does not cover guarantee\ncommission.\n18.3 The Ld.AR submitted that the commission is paid as\nconsideration/ recompense

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

1) of the\nConstitution. It is submitted that, section 43B contemplates that,\na law must levy a tax, duty, cess or fee, and that there is no such\nlevy in the case of a guarantee commission. The Ld.AR thus\nsubmitted that Section 43B does not cover guarantee\ncommission.\n18.3 The Ld.AR submitted that the commission is paid as\nconsideration/ recompense

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

246\n4.\nExcess Claim of Depreciation on ATM, Note Counting\nMachine & Weighing Machine\n2,03,00,000\n5.\nPenalty for non-Deduction to Section 37(1)\n6.\nDisallowance u/s 14A\n7.\nDepreciation on Leased Assets\n8.\nLong Term Capital Gain on Sale of shares of CanFin\nHome Ltd.\n9.\nDisallowance of Provision for Bad & Doubtful Debt u/s\n36(1)(viia

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 34 of the Act that entries in the books of ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 52 of 104 account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant whenever they refer to a matter in which the Court has to enquire was subject to the salient proviso that such entries shall

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

1) of the\nConstitution. It is submitted that, section 43B contemplates that,\na law must levy a tax, duty, cess or fee, and that there is no such\nlevy in the case of a guarantee commission. The Ld.AR thus\nsubmitted that Section 43B does not cover guarantee\ncommission.\n18.3 The Ld.AR submitted that the commission is paid as\nconsideration/ recompense

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

1) of the\nConstitution. It is submitted that, section 43B contemplates that,\na law must levy a tax, duty, cess or fee, and that there is no such\nlevy in the case of a guarantee commission. The Ld.AR thus\nsubmitted that Section 43B does not cover guarantee\ncommission.\nPage 35 of 48\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023\n18.3 The Ld.AR

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

1) of the\nConstitution. It is submitted that, section 43B contemplates that,\na law must levy a tax, duty, cess or fee, and that there is no such\nlevy in the case of a guarantee commission. The Ld.AR thus\nsubmitted that Section 43B does not cover guarantee\ncommission.\n18.3 The Ld.AR submitted that the commission is paid as\nconsideration/ recompense

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

1) of the\nConstitution. It is submitted that, section 43B contemplates that,\na law must levy a tax, duty, cess or fee, and that there is no such\nlevy in the case of a guarantee commission. The Ld.AR thus\nsubmitted that Section 43B does not cover guarantee\ncommission.\n18.3 The Ld.AR submitted that the commission is paid as\nconsideration/ recompense

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

1) of the\nConstitution. It is submitted that, section 43B contemplates that,\na law must levy a tax, duty, cess or fee, and that there is no such\nlevy in the case of a guarantee commission. The Ld.AR thus\nsubmitted that Section 43B does not cover guarantee\ncommission.\n\nPage 35 of 48\n\nITA Nos. 1052 to 1060/Bang/2023