BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

42 results for “disallowance”+ Section 35Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai256Delhi208Chennai85Ahmedabad44Bangalore42Kolkata42Hyderabad33Raipur19Jaipur8Karnataka8Cochin7Rajkot5Pune3SC3Telangana3Guwahati3Cuttack3Punjab & Haryana2Visakhapatnam2Kerala1Dehradun1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Lucknow1Nagpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14A52Section 35D47Section 143(3)39Addition to Income36Disallowance33Section 36(1)(viia)32Deduction19Section 14815Depreciation15Section 234B

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2364/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 143(2)13
Section 115J12
Section 36(1)(iii)
Section 80

Disallowance under section 35D 4.1. The learned AO has erred in making a disallowance of Rs. 13,20,000/- claimed

M/S SUBEX LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Radhakrishna, CIT-III(DR)
Section 115JSection 263Section 35D

disallowance of the aforesaid two claims made by the Assessee. By implication both the aforesaid claims were accepted by the AO. Page 9 of 38 12. The CIT in exercise of his powers u/s.263 of the Act was of the view that the aforesaid order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

MANIPAL HEALTH SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1092/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable." I am of the view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra), the issue as regards requirement of a satisfaction

MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1031/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable." I am of the view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra), the issue as regards requirement of a satisfaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1208/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable." I am of the view that in the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra), the issue as regards requirement of a satisfaction

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S AVASARALA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 815/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.815/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -11(1), Bangalore .. Appellant V. Avasarala Technologies Ltd., No.47, 36Th Main, Brm Ist Stage, Dollars Scheme, Bangalore – 560 068 .. Respondent Pan : Aabca 2381E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Jcit Heard On : 26.08.2015 Pronounced On : 31.08.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, JCIT
Section 35D

disallowed in the A. Y. 2008-09 without appreciating that on an appeal by the assessee for the A. Yrs. 2008-09 & 2009-10, the ITAT set aside the issue to the AO, who after examining the relevant expenditure vis-à- vis the provisions of section 35D

SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35D

Section 35D, foreign exchange fluctuations, depreciation on computer software and working out deduction u/s. 10AA as against assessee’s claims. Another issue on non-granting of foreign tax credit is also involved. Aggrieved on the DRP’s orders, assessee is in appeal and raised as many as 32 grounds. Likewise, Revenue is also aggrieved on the DRP’s directions allowing

M/S THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, for the year under consideration provides for the disallowance of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business. The ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2007) 110 TTJ 170 (Hyd) held that the terms ‘extension’ connotes that

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

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

ITA 457/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

disallowed by ld. AO as discussed in earlier para. 8.9 Now let us appreciate the fact that overburden removal process is not one time process in any mining site. Because Minerals or Ores always located below the surface level. There could be unrelated layers or soils or rocks, which are required to be removed before one can reach the mines

M/S, SUBEX LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed while the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2249/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.2249(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Subex Limited, Rmz Ecoworld, Outer Ring Road, Devarabisanahlli, Bangalore-560 103 Panno.Aabcs9255R Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent & Ita No.2361(B)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) (By Revenue) Appellant By : Shri Aditya Raipuria, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Raipuria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 35D

35D as well. “6. We have heard the rival submissions. It is noticed from the order of CIT(Appeals) that in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal has held that disallowance of business service-marketing charges will go to increase the profits of the business which is eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA

M/S SERENDIPITY INFOLABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2428/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 56(2)(viib)

disallowance of amortisation of intangible assets under section 35D amounting to Rs.59,46,000/- • revaluation of share premium under section

M/S HIGH RANGE COFFEE CURING PVT LTD ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2526/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. High Range Coffee Curing Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(1), Mysore Madikere Road, Mysuru. Abbur, Periyapatna, Mysore District – 571 107. Pan : Aaach 8173 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234B

disallowing a portion of the Sales-tax paid in an earlier year which was later written off in the A.Y.2013-14 and claimed by the appellant as an allowable expenditure. In this regard, at paragraph 3 of the written submission, dt.07/06/2018, the appellant submitted as follows: "The management of the Company decided to write of (sic.) Rs.67,07,594/- of disputed

SHEL MRPL AVIATION FULES AND SERVICES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3216/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14A

disallowed such professional fees incurred on the 21. ground that these are pre-operative expenses. Further, the AO restricted the deduction towards these professional fees to one-fifth of the expenses incurred (i.e., INR 3,25,836) on the ground that these expenses are covered under the provisions of section 35D

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.EAGLETON PROPERTY HOLDINGS CIRCLE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 190/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Eagleton Property Holdings, Income Tax #4, Model House Street, Circle -7(2)(1), Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 004. Pan : Aabfe 9867 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Arun Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 7.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 7.1.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: None
Section 14Section 80Section 801Section 80I

disallowance of the claims of the assessee under Section 80IB(10). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 14.11.2012 allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act. On further appeal by the revenue the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 21.03.2014 upheld the order

M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 37/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 56(2)

section 14A should be restricted to Rs.25,68,400/- being exempt income. In course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that it is a mistake. But in view of this that the Computation of Income is not filed before us and the assessee has earned in the present year Rs.58,88,121/- as profit

M/S. VBHC VALUE HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2541/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 74-75 Millers Road, Vasanthnagar, Ward – 7(1)(3), Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaccv 7868 G The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 -Do- Of Income Tax, Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. S.P. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 29/Bang/2020 M/S. Vbhc Value Homes Income Tax Officer, 2015-16 Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(1)(3), (In Ita No.2541/Bang/2019) Pan : Aaccv 7868 G Bengaluru. 59/Bang/2020 -Do- The Assistant Commissioner 2016-17 Of Income Tax, (In Ita No. 37/Bang/2020) Ward – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru. Assessee/S.P. By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 56(2)

section 14A should be restricted to Rs.25,68,400/- being exempt income. In course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that it is a mistake. But in view of this that the Computation of Income is not filed before us and the assessee has earned in the present year Rs.58,88,121/- as profit

M/S. TOYOTA TAUSHO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1)(1), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2806/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

disallowing an amount of INR 2,377,290 under Section 35D in relation to the expenditure incurred for increase in authorized

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 693/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 684/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(viia)

Section, FM&S Wing, Bangalore. HO, No.112, JC Road, Bangalore-560002. 479/Bang/2009 2006-07 -do- Addl.CIT, LTU Bangalore. 793/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 693/Bang/2012 2008-09 -do- -do- 601/Bang/2010 2005-06 Joint CIT,LTU, Canara Bank, Bangalore. Bangalore. 530/Bang/2009 2006-07 Addl.CIT,LTU,B’lore. -do- 813/Bang/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 684/Bang/2012 2008-09 Joint CIT, LTU,B’lore