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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act vide Finance Act 2013. 6. There is no scope in IT Act to allow the provision of non rural branches advances u/s 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act and in the present case it was not bad debt write off of non rural branches. The assessee bank has made false submission

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 sustained by the learned CIT(A) is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant appropriate relief in accordance with law. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 48 of 53 60. The Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal pertains to levy of interest under section 234D of the Act which

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 sustained by the learned CIT(A) is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant appropriate relief in accordance with law. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 48 of 53 60. The Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal pertains to levy of interest under section 234D of the Act which

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 sustained by the learned CIT(A) is set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant appropriate relief in accordance with law. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 48 of 53 60. The Ground No. 5 of the assessee’s appeal pertains to levy of interest under section 234D of the Act which

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.

66,25,039/-. 2.7 The Ld.AO was of the opinion that nexus has not been established between the advancing of funds in the business interest of the assessee. The Ld.AO disallowed the interest under section 36(1

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, UDUPI

In the result, grounds 6 and 9 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

1 is general in nature, hence, the same is dismissed. The other grounds shall be adjudicated as under:- DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT (GROUND 2 AND 3) 17. The assessee-bank had earned exempt income of Rs.29,87,66,187. The assessee-bank while filing the return of income had disallowed an amount of Rs.9,86,321 as expenditure

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

section 36(1)(viia) being an incentive provision should be interpreted liberally. 3.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the short fall in provision has been made good by the appellant bank and as such, the appellant bank is eligible for the deduction as claimed

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)

disallowance made by the Learned AO under Section\n14A without recording the satisfaction is bad and invalid.\n7.\nBased on the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the\nimpugned order for AY 2017-18 may be quashed.\n Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21:\n1.\nIt is submitted that the Assessee's Appeal in ITA Nos.645

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

1 Page 20 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 6.1. The Ld.AO disallowed deduction claimed under section 10AA in respect of the aforesaid 4 SEZ Units relying on similar disallowances made in the assessment orders passed for the earlier years. For all the 4 SEZ units, it was held by the Ld. AO that the projects undertaken

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

66. The said provision provides for deduction of the tax paid in any country from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income even though there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation. Explanation (iv) defines the expression Income-tax in relation to any country

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

66. The said provision provides for deduction of the tax paid in any country from the Indian Income-tax payable by him of a sum calculated on such doubly taxed income even though there is no agreement under section 90 for the relief or avoidance of double taxation. Explanation (iv) defines the expression Income-tax in relation to any country

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

1)(vi) of the Act is not relevant to determine disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source as the corresponding amendment has not been made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 5.6. The Honble DRP has erred in law in directing the learned ACIT to carry out further verification which is not permissible in view of section

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

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts in the case

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts in the case

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

66,645/-. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs.84,99,225/- under the provisions of 40(a)(i) of the Act on the alleged failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source on the payments made to non-resident parties rejecting the contention of the assessee-company that the said payments do not constitute fees for included services

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

66,645/-. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs.84,99,225/- under the provisions of 40(a)(i) of the Act on the alleged failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source on the payments made to non-resident parties rejecting the contention of the assessee-company that the said payments do not constitute fees for included services

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

66,645/-. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs.84,99,225/- under the provisions of 40(a)(i) of the Act on the alleged failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source on the payments made to non-resident parties rejecting the contention of the assessee-company that the said payments do not constitute fees for included services

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

66,645/-. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs.84,99,225/- under the provisions of 40(a)(i) of the Act on the alleged failure of the assessee to deduct tax at source on the payments made to non-resident parties rejecting the contention of the assessee-company that the said payments do not constitute fees for included services