SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section\n132 of the Act, initiated as on 17th February 2021. The search was\ncarried out on the following premises of the assessee:\n(1) Head office at GD House, 619/G, 36th Cross, 2nd Block, Rajajingar\n(2) Saptagiri Institute of Medical Science & Research Centre\n(3) Saptagiri Engineering College\n\n5.2 In the case of Head office and Saptagiri

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of ₹5,13,01,761/- towards gratuity expenses under section 43B of the Act. This adjustment increased the assessee’s income to ₹ 63,40,69,950/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and a draft assessment order under section 143(3) r/w Section 144C(1

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

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 565,92,40,708/- u/s 36(1)(viia). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 58,30,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(viii). 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

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

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 565,92,40,708/- u/s 36(1)(viia). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 58,30,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(viii). 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

SRI PANATI VIDYANATH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) addition of Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. Rs.15,98,331/- on account of contribution of PF and ESI were made to the total income. The issue involved in the ground of appeal is disallowance of Rs.15,98,331/- for contribution to PF and ESI. 3

M/S. NIRMAL ENVIRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) addition of Nirmal Enviro Solutions P. Ltd. Rs.15,98,331/- on account of contribution of PF and ESI were made to the total income. The issue involved in the ground of appeal is disallowance of Rs.15,98,331/- for contribution to PF and ESI. 3

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

section\n132 of the Act, initiated as on 17th February 2021. The search was\ncarried out on the following premises of the assessee:\n(1) Head office at GD House, 619/G, 36th Cross, 2nd Block, Rajajingar\n(2) Saptagiri Institute of Medical Science & Research Centre\n(3) Saptagiri Engineering College\n5.2 In the case of Head office and Saptagiri Institutes

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

disallowing the claim of Rs. 218,08,80,715/- of the appellant bank u/s 36(1)(vii) being the bad debts written off by the non-rural branches of the Appellant bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1

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

disallowing the claim of Rs. 218,08,80,715/- of the appellant bank u/s 36(1)(vii) being the bad debts written off by the non-rural branches of the Appellant bank. 2.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the non- rural debts are not controlled by the proviso to Section 36(1

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

disallowance by the learned\nCIT(A) is the application of the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act\nby treating the transaction as a case of succession under section 170 of\nthe Act. We therefore proceed to examine whether, in the facts of the\npresent case, section 170 and consequently the sixth proviso to section\n32(1

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

disallowance by the learned CIT(A) is the application of the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act by treating the transaction as a case of succession under section 170 of the Act. We therefore proceed to examine whether, in the facts of the present case, section 170 and consequently the sixth proviso to section 32(1

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

disallowance by the learned CIT(A) is the application of the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act by treating the transaction as a case of succession under section 170 of the Act. We therefore proceed to examine whether, in the facts of the present case, section 170 and consequently the sixth proviso to section 32(1

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

disallowance by the learned CIT(A) is the application of the sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act by treating the transaction as a case of succession under section 170 of the Act. We therefore proceed to examine whether, in the facts of the present case, section 170 and consequently the sixth proviso to section 32(1

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

disallowing the employees contribution to provident fund or ESI while processing return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would fall within the ambit of prima- facie adjustments stipulated in that section. For this purpose, he relied on the judgement of order of the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case

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

disallowing the employees contribution to provident fund or ESI while processing return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would fall within the ambit of prima- facie adjustments stipulated in that section. For this purpose, he relied on the judgement of order of the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case

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

disallowing the employees contribution to provident fund or ESI while processing return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would fall within the ambit of prima- facie adjustments stipulated in that section. For this purpose, he relied on the judgement of order of the Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

sections 72(1), 73(2), 73A(2), 74(1) or (3) and 74A(3) and 80 of the Act were relied on by the Ld.AR and contended that the losses in respect of the previous years could be set off against the current Page 4 of 14 years profits when the assessee had filed their return of income

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

section 36(1)(vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against provision allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also) is hereby set aside. Hence, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance made by the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.” 11.1 Similar issue has also been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal