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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

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

section 37(1) of the Act, and the disallowance made by the lower authorities be deleted. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 43

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

section 37(1) of the Act, and the disallowance made by the lower authorities be deleted. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 43

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

section 37(1) of the Act, and the disallowance made by the lower authorities be deleted. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 43

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

disallowance as under:- ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 33 of 46 26. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) relying on following judgments allowed appeal of the assessee:- • Canara Bank v. JCIT, LTU [2017] 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT Bang) • Vijaya Bank v. JCIT, LTU in ITA No.1252/B/2010 order

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

disallowance as under:- ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 33 of 46 26. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) relying on following judgments allowed appeal of the assessee:- • Canara Bank v. JCIT, LTU [2017] 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT Bang) • Vijaya Bank v. JCIT, LTU in ITA No.1252/B/2010 order

M/S. BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 143(1)(a) in disallowing Rs. 2,95,391 being the employees’ contribution to the Employees Provident Fund when the same have been remitted within April 30th, the due date under Rule 43

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

1 to 3 of the appeal are general in nature and therefore, the same do not require any specific adjudication. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous. IT(TP)A No.1539/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 37 3. The issue in Ground No. 29 relates to the levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. Since the levy

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

disallowance\nprovisions of section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, the same should be allowed as\na business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.\n38.4 In support of this contention, reliance was placed on judicial\nprecedents, including the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in\nMastek Ltd. v. DCIT and the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High

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

43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notify with effect from the 19th July, 1969, the following banks for the purposes of the said sub-clause:- 1. Indian Overseas Bank, 151, Mount Road, Madras 2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1. ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 46 3. Allahabad Bank, 14, India

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

1) of the\nPage 37 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nact.\n2\n[2017] 87\nТахтапn.Com 244\n(Karnataka)\nSharavathy\nConductors (P.)\nLtd.\nV.\nChief\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Тах,\nBengaluru-2*\nAssesse cited case deals\nwith condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section

THAMANNA ,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-2(1) , MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

43-8 of the Income Tax Act, means the contribution of the employer and the employee. That being so, if the contribution is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub section (1) of the IT Page 4 of 15 Act is made on or before the due date for furnishing the return

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section and not with reference to the amount of provision made in the books of account. ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 31 4.7. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is based on surmises and conjunctures.” 21. During the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, the AO noted that

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section and not with reference to the amount of provision made in the books of account. ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 31 4.7. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is based on surmises and conjunctures.” 21. During the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, the AO noted that

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section and not with reference to the amount of provision made in the books of account. ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 31 4.7. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is based on surmises and conjunctures.” 21. During the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, the AO noted that

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

43,30,854. The mistake is apparent on the face of record. 17.1 On a careful reading of the assessment order, it is clear that AO has made no addition to the business income except for the disallowance made under section 80JJAA of the Act. Even after such disallowance, the AO has computed the assessed business income

DUSTERS TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

43,30,854. The mistake is apparent on the face of record. 17.1 On a careful reading of the assessment order, it is clear that AO has made no addition to the business income except for the disallowance made under section 80JJAA of the Act. Even after such disallowance, the AO has computed the assessed business income

SMT. VASANTHI PADMANABHA SHERUGAR,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

43,18,915/- was made to the Appellant's income by way of an intimation under Section 143(1), which is impermissible in law and unsustainable. 4. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the nature of the adjustment made by way of the intimation under Section 143(1) does not fall within the permissible adjustments enumerated under Section