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

5,47,92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

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

5,47,92,966 11 Disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure 2,25,13,253 12 Disallowance of other provisions 3,99,95,033 13 Expenditure debited under the head cost of 84,98,42,348 goods sold 14 Outside contract service 36,14,59,731 15 Date of approval and disallowed under 28,31,39,077 section

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

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed an expenditure of Rs. 1,34,80,381/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the counsel for the assessee did not press this ground before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a \"sufficient cause\" for the inordinate delay

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

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

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

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

253 ITR 749 (Guj)\n\n13.14 The assessee relied on the decision Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh & Others 5\nSCC 448 for the proposition that even if the earlier decision of the\nCo-ordinate Bench seems to be incorrect to a Bench of the same\njurisdiction on the ground that a possible

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

disallowance without providing an opportunity of being heard.” 2. The main issue in this appeal is dismissing the appeal by the NFAC without admitting the same on the reason that there was no “sufficient cause” for filing appeal belatedly before him. As per the order of NFAC, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 10.6.2019 served

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

5) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee filed the audit report before inclusion of the assessment and claimed the deduction of .58,45,894/-under section 801A of the Act. In view of the above discussions, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the audit report and the revised claim of Page 10 of 29 ITA Nos. 755 to 757/Bang/2023

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit 6,00,000 Employee Leave encashment 9,70,000 Total 27,70,000 3.5 The assessee contended that the above expenses are to be debited to the Profit & Loss account in conformity with

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act: Particulars Amount (Rs.) NPA 12,00,000 Employee Retirement Benefit 6,00,000 Employee Leave encashment 9,70,000 Total 27,70,000 3.5 The assessee contended that the above expenses are to be debited to the Profit & Loss account in conformity with

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 of 13 disallowed under section 43[b] of the Act towards non- remittance of Gratuity, whereas in the computation statement produced only Rs. 44,04,25,557/- has been disallowed and added back in the total income instead of disallowance amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/-, which has resulted in short computation of income to the tune

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

5 of 13 disallowed under section 43[b] of the Act towards non- remittance of Gratuity, whereas in the computation statement produced only Rs. 44,04,25,557/- has been disallowed and added back in the total income instead of disallowance amount of Rs. 52,08,24,535/-, which has resulted in short computation of income to the tune

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeals within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part

M/S HUSSAIN MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BIJAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

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

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "40(a)(ia)", "263", "253(5)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to unavoidable reasons, and whether the disallowance

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , 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

5. Ground No.2 - Bad Debts written off u/s.36(1)(vii) 5.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the disallowance of bad debts written off by it u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. In the order of M/s. Bank of Baroda assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim as he was of the view that it was only

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

5. Ground No.2 - Bad Debts written off u/s.36(1)(vii) 5.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the disallowance of bad debts written off by it u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act. In the order of M/s. Bank of Baroda assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim as he was of the view that it was only

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

disallowed the balance amount of Rs.88,24,01,309 as\nunder:-\nParticulars\n01\n10% of average aggregate advances made during the year\nby rural branches being Rs.421.49 crores(Rs.607.89 crores\nRs.186.40 crores; excluding advances pertaining to branches\nsituated in Semi-Urban branches and Urban\nagglomeration and after considering the amount of\nadvances sanctioned by rural branch during the year\nincremental