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

B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member M/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

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

41(4) in respect of the recoveries made from the bad debts not allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in the earlier years and in the current year, if the Ground relating to the claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) is decided against the Appellant Bank. ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 3 of 46 4. The learned

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

41(4) in respect of the recoveries made from the bad debts not allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in the earlier years and in the current year, if the Ground relating to the claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) is decided against the Appellant Bank. ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 3 of 46 4. The learned

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

41 – 45 to state that the amendment has been made with effect from 1 April 2021 and further referred to the memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill 2021 wherein it is mentioned that the above amendment will take effect from 1 April 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021 – 22 and subsequent assessment years

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

41 – 45 to state that the amendment has been made with effect from 1 April 2021 and further referred to the memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill 2021 wherein it is mentioned that the above amendment will take effect from 1 April 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021 – 22 and subsequent assessment years

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

41 every corresponding new bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian company‟ and the company in which the public are „substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the „company‟ has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because Section

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

41. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to ITA No. 291/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 35 of 53 42. The Ground Nos. 1 and 6 of the assessee’s appeal are general Grounds which do not require any separate adjudication. Hence, we dismiss the same

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

41. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to ITA No. 291/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 35 of 53 42. The Ground Nos. 1 and 6 of the assessee’s appeal are general Grounds which do not require any separate adjudication. Hence, we dismiss the same

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

41. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to ITA No. 291/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 35 of 53 42. The Ground Nos. 1 and 6 of the assessee’s appeal are general Grounds which do not require any separate adjudication. Hence, we dismiss the same

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

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.

disallowed interest expenditure incurred on bank overdraft and interest payable to financial institutions amounting to Rs.5,32,41,623/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that the sister concerns of assessee are also engaged in similar businesses that of assessee and that they have acquired land for joint development to carry out specific projects

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

b) Without prejudice, the sum of Rs.6,44,25,411/- ought to have been allowed as a business loss/ expense under section 28 or section 37(1) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 41 c) Without prejudice, the authorities below erred in disallowing

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

b) Without prejudice, the sum of Rs.6,44,25,411/- ought to have been allowed as a business loss/ expense under section 28 or section 37(1) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 41 c) Without prejudice, the authorities below erred in disallowing

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

b) Without prejudice, the sum of Rs.6,44,25,411/- ought to have been allowed as a business loss/ expense under section 28 or section 37(1) of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.234 to 237/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 41 c) Without prejudice, the authorities below erred in disallowing

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

41 (1) of the act. Accordingly, we dismiss ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO. 20. In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 21. Now we proceed to decide the appeal of Assessee. 22. Ground number 1 of the appeal is general in nature, no specific arguments were advanced, therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

41 (1) of the act. Accordingly, we dismiss ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO. 20. In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed. 21. Now we proceed to decide the appeal of Assessee. 22. Ground number 1 of the appeal is general in nature, no specific arguments were advanced, therefore

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

b) of Income Tax Rules, the submission of Form 3CL issued by DSIR is mandatory for allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to furnish Form 3CL for the relevant year, the AO concluded that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction at 150%. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the excess weighted deduction

M/S HOTHUR TRADERS ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

b) In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT [ 261 ITR 501 (Bom.)], loan was to purchase plant and machinery - dies, tools, etc., i.e., capital assets. It was on these facts that waiver of principal amount of loan was held to be neither covered by Section 28(iv) nor Section 41(1) of the Act. (c) In the case

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

41(4) of 1961 Act and, consequently, there is no merit in the contention that, if the assessee succeeds, then it would result in escapement of income from assessment.” 5.5.2 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the assessee's own case reported in 323 ITR 166 (supra), we hold that the assessee bank

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

B of the Act. The words ‘derived by an undertaking’ in section 10AA means all profits and gains of the SEZ unit including the incidental incomes arising in the ordinary course of business even though not as a direct result of export. All incidental activities resulting in incidental incomes in the SEZ units are earned out of business decisions