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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act vide Finance Act 2013. 6. There is no scope in IT Act to allow the provision of non rural branches advances u/s 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act and in the present case it was not bad debt write off of non rural branches. The assessee bank has made false submission

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

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as under:- “The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the previous year for these ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 36 of 46 assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1- 4-2003. For the purpose of computing

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

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as under:- “The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the previous year for these ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 36 of 46 assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1- 4-2003. For the purpose of computing

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

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as under:-\n\n\"The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the previous year for these assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1-4-2003. For the purpose of computing the deduction under section 36(viia

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as\nunder:-\n\"The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the\n assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the\nprevious year for these assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1-\n4-2003. For the purpose of computing the deduction under section\n36(viia

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as\nunder:-\n\"The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the\n assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the\nprevious year for these assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1-\n4-2003. For the purpose of computing the deduction under section\n36(viia

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

253 (Karnataka) in which it has been held as\nunder:-\n\"The instant case is concerned with the assessment for the\n assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The first day of the\nprevious year for these assessment years would be 1-4-2002 and 1-\n4-2003. For the purpose of computing the deduction under section\n36(viia

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

253 of the Act ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 22 of 34 and accordingly we inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 16. The Ground No 1 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 16.1 The Ground No 2 deals with disallowance under section

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

253 of the Act\n\nPage 22 of 34\n\nand accordingly we inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication on merits.\n\n16. The Ground No 1 is general in nature and does not require any\nadjudication.\n\n16.1 The Ground No 2 deals with disallowance under section

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

disallowing the claim of exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act with respect to the capital gains on the long term equity shares and have failed to take cognizance of the DEMAT statement, contract notes, etc submitted during the course of assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances. ii. The authorities below have erred in treating the long

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

1,210,72,35,796 income 5 Addition of income received in advance 203,11,57,705 6 Disallowance of 40 (a) and 40 (a) (I) 93,08,45,488 7 Disallowance of lease rent as capital 4,38,55,450 expenditure 8 Disallowance of demonstration equipment 63,16,692 written off 9 Disallowance of provision for spare parts

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

1,210,72,35,796 income 5 Addition of income received in advance 203,11,57,705 6 Disallowance of 40 (a) and 40 (a) (I) 93,08,45,488 7 Disallowance of lease rent as capital 4,38,55,450 expenditure 8 Disallowance of demonstration equipment 63,16,692 written off 9 Disallowance of provision for spare parts

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 ITR 430 (Ker). Thus, only the excess amount of bad debts written off, remaining after such set off, is admissible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii). 7.2 On appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(Appeals) that it had written off total amount of Rs.1296,56,16,023 during the year. The entire sum of Rs.130

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

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 ITR 430 (Ker). Thus, only the excess amount of bad debts written off, remaining after such set off, is admissible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii). 7.2 On appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(Appeals) that it had written off total amount of Rs.1296,56,16,023 during the year. The entire sum of Rs.130

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 ITR 430 (Ker). Thus, only the excess amount of bad debts written off, remaining after such set off, is admissible for deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii). 7.2 On appeal, the assessee submitted before the CIT(Appeals) that it had written off total amount of Rs.1296,56,16,023 during the year. The entire sum of Rs.130

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed a sum of Rs.49,35,000/- under section 11(5) of the Act. 4.4 He submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought not to have passed an ex-parte order and mere non- exercise of right to be heard by the assessee during the proceedings could not be reason enough for the Commissioner (Appeals

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253)] 7. That even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law due to absence of the mandatory satisfaction as required u/s 153C(1) of the Act. a. That it is a borrowed satisfaction and has been recorded mechanically without application of mind. b. That the satisfaction recorded

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253)] 7. That even otherwise the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law due to absence of the mandatory satisfaction as required u/s 153C(1) of the Act. a. That it is a borrowed satisfaction and has been recorded mechanically without application of mind. b. That the satisfaction recorded

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

253, the only two questions answered in the judgment were: (i) "Whether sub section (2) and sub section (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? (ii) Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?" The question whether the section will attract even when there is potential of exempt dividend income from share investment