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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2008-2009. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

260A before the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Karnataka. This Tribunal, however, emphasizes the principle of\njudicial discipline and consistency, which requires that identical cases be\ntreated in a uniform manner. The AO's attempt to disregard the binding\nprecedent set by the ITAT in the BDA case solely due to an unresolved\nappeal is unwarranted and contrary to established

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Texas Instrument (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 66/3, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Raman Circle – 7(1)(1), Nagar, S. O, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aaact 5445 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024

disallowance of 1NR 5,53,12,436) based on the evidence filed before the learned AO. 3. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits by observing that assessee had opted for Vivad-se- Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (VSV) vide application dated 29.12.2020 and pursuant thereto, the PCIT had certified

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

260A before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. This Tribunal, however, emphasizes the principle of judicial discipline and consistency, which requires that identical cases be treated in a uniform manner. The AO’s attempt to disregard the binding precedent set by the ITAT in the BDA case solely due to an unresolved . ITA No.1056, 1352 & 1353/Bang/2024 Page

NIRMAN SONESTAA DEVELOPERS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance under section 37(1) of the Act especially when the appellant had contracted and sold the properties in accordance with the regularized plan, the profit from which had been offered for taxation? 9. On the overall examination of the facts and legal position, we find that the authorities below have not committed any error in law, warranting a correction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. AD2PRO MEDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n6.\nAggrieved, assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) for Assessment Years\n2016-17 and 2017-18. The CIT(A), by following the Tribunal order which was\nconfirmed by the Hon'ble High Court for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to\n2017-18, decided the issue

M/S. JSW STEEL PROCESSING CENTRES LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(6), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

260A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court in ITA No.479/18 (judgment dated 20.09.2022), restored the matter to the Tribunal. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reads as follows: “ORDER i) The appeal is allowed; Page 2 of 14 ii) Order dated 07.03.2018 in I.T.A.No.2001/Bang/2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

disallowance. 25. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal for AY 2008-09. 26. We have considered the rival submissions

ONMOBILE GLOBAL LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 245/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & 94/2, The Deputy Veerasandra Village, Commissioner Attibele Hobli, Of Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 5(1)(2), Electronic City Phase – 1, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Onmobile Global Ltd., Tower #1, 94/1C & The Deputy 94/2, Commissioner Of Veerasandra Village, Income Tax, Attibele Hobli, Central Circle – 1(2), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan: Aaaco3900E Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

disallowance. 25. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal for AY 2008-09. 26. We have considered the rival submissions

M/S. SILICON ESTATES,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Silicon Estates, The Deputy # 14, 6Th Floor, Commissioner Of Geneva House, Income Tax, Cunningham Road, Central Circle Bengaluru – 560 001. 1(4), Vs. Pan: Abefs6150N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-12-2023 Order Per Madhumita Roythe Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2020 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 1(4), Bangalore U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Y. 2013-14 Whereby & Whereunder The Rejection Of The Claim U/S. 80Ib(10) Of Rs.4,03,40,492/- For A.Y. 2013-14 Has Been Confirmed.

disallowance of claim made by revenue u/s. 80IB(10)(f) in respect of flats allocated to Shri Ramzan Ali Khan as the amendment brought to this statue w.e.f. 01.04.2010; the same is perspective in nature and could not be applied to the instant case of the assessee as was the case made out by the assessee before us. On this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowances also, the Ld.CIT(A) had given a finding and deleted / remitted the issues to the AO for fresh consideration. 6. Aggrieved with the above order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted the paper books for all the assessment years and also filed a common

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowances also, the Ld.CIT(A) had given a finding and deleted / remitted the issues to the AO for fresh consideration. 6. Aggrieved with the above order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted the paper books for all the assessment years and also filed a common

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS)CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

disallowances also, the Ld.CIT(A) had given a finding and deleted / remitted the issues to the AO for fresh consideration. 6. Aggrieved with the above order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted the paper books for all the assessment years and also filed a common

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 1996-97 M/S. Canara Bank, Vs. Dcit, Fm Wing, Head Office, 112, J C Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 002. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2024

section 260A of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 02.11.2020 in ITA No.333/2016 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 10. Pursuant to the ITAT order, AO passed order giving effect to the Tribunal order (AO’s order dated 08.03.2017). The AO, during the course of order giving effect proceedings, had issued notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SMT. VANKADARA PADMAVATHI, HOSPET, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance of Rs.10,32,39,139 relating to claim of bad debt written off by the appellant. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT which was dismissed. Further the appeal filed appeal before the jurisdictional High Court u/s. 260A of the Act which is pending. 5. The AO initiated penalty proceedings and passed penalty order

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

260A of the Act. Further\nafter set aside, the appeal filed by the revenue the appeal has\nbeen closed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as per order dated\n03-11-2023. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Ld. CIT(A)\nfor upholding the addition does not exists and is not\napplicable.\nb) CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi

TYCO FIRE SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

Disallowance of Expense 19,84,074 made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act (As above) Total income: 45,45,50,571 Rounded off to: 45,45,50,570 4.5 Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 5. First of all, we deal with the additional ground raised before us. 5.1 It is noted that