ITEK PACKZ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC passed under section 250 of the Act is so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed to total income

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these are clubbed together heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.294/Bang/2023 are reproduced as under: ITA Nos.294

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these are clubbed together heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.294/Bang/2023 are reproduced as under: ITA Nos.294

M/S. NANDI HOSPITALITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. The issue in all these appeals are common in nature except figures, hence, these are clubbed together heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.294/Bang/2023 are reproduced as under: ITA Nos.294

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2021-22, which were heard together. 2. First, we take up ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017- 18 as the lead case. The assessee, in the memo of appeal, has raised four grounds bearing numbers

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2021-22, which were heard together. 2. First, we take up ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017- 18 as the lead case. The assessee, in the memo of appeal, has raised four grounds bearing numbers

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2021-22, which were heard together. 2. First, we take up ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017- 18 as the lead case. The assessee, in the memo of appeal, has raised four grounds bearing numbers

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

1) passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the AY 2018- 19 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the issues inall these cross appeals are common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee

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

250 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to\n2021-22, which were heard together.\n2.\nFirst, we take up ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-\n18 as the lead case. The assessee, in the memo of appeal, has raised\nfour grounds bearing numbers

M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

250 of the Act. 3. The Ld. AO has erred by adjudicating employer's contribution to ESI and PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act instead of adjudicating only the employee's contribution to ESI and PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act which is grossly incorrect. 4. The order passed by the Ld. AO is INVALID

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.7.2.2013 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.1337,22,61,520 in view of the following additions / disallowances :- i) Disallowance of bad debts Rs.467,58,97,863. claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) ii) Disallowance of claim u/s.36(1)(viia) Rs.232

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

section 36(1)(va) of the Act has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., and Others Vs. CIT and Others (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 and the grounds were not allowed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has also noted that Form No.67 r.w.r. 128 of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE vs. THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). ITA Nos.555 & 562/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangalore Page 2 of 20 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) is bad in law, arbitrary, perverse and legally unsustainable. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The\nAct\").\nPage 2 of 20\n2.\nThe assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:\n1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) \nis bad in law, arbitrary, perverse and legally unsustainable.\n2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in\nupholding the disallowance

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DYDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Vice), confirming the order of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle 1(1), Bengaluru (`learned Tax Officer'). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. 1. Ground No. 1- The impugned order passed by learned

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Vice), confirming the order of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle 1(1), Bengaluru (`learned Tax Officer'). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. 1. Ground No. 1- The impugned order passed by learned

M/S VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Vice), confirming the order of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle 1(1), Bengaluru (`learned Tax Officer'). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. 1. Ground No. 1- The impugned order passed by learned

M.S VODAFONE MOBILES SERVICES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all three Stay petitions are dismissed, five appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Vice), confirming the order of the Deputy Director of Income Tax, International Tax, Circle 1(1), Bengaluru (`learned Tax Officer'). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. 1. Ground No. 1- The impugned order passed by learned