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 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

disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2019-20 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 291/Bang/2025 for the assessment year

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

disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2019-20 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 291/Bang/2025 for the assessment year

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

disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 69. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee in its grounds of appeal for the AY 2019-20 is identical to the issue raised by the assessee in ITA No. 291/Bang/2025 for the assessment year

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(vii) applies only to provision made for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural advances.”\n\nBecause of the interpretation so given by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as discussed earlier, there arose a necessity for the Parliament to clarify that the PBDD allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) shall apply to all types of advances including advances made

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

disallowance of claims made/deduction claimed by the assessee. ITA Nos.1154/Bang/2023 & ITA 210, 222 & 297/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank., Bangalore Page 5 of 40 3.1 The ld. AO also computed the income of the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act by adding various items not covered by the Explanation to section 115JB(2) of the Act and determined book profit of Rs.1605

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 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(vii) applies only to\nprovision made for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural\nadvances.\nBecause of the interpretation so given by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt, as discussed earlier, there arose a necessity for the\nParliament to clarify that the PBDD allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) shall\napply to all types of advances including advances made

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

disallowance made by the assessee under section 14A amounting to Rs. 1,72,86,259 is not correct having regard

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

1,03,89,252/-. The assessee after claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act declared taxable income of Rs. 10,72,28,150/- only. 14. In the assessment order, the AO disallowed

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

1,03,89,252/-. The assessee after claiming deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act declared taxable income of Rs. 10,72,28,150/- only. 14. In the assessment order, the AO disallowed

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

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

Section 143(1) of the act. To support the view taken by us we have relied upon the detailed finding of the coordinate Delhi bench’s decision in the case of Garg Heart Center & Nursing Home Private Limited in ITA No. 1700/Del/2022. ……………………….. 9.2 Respectfully following the above view the ground no 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. [emphasis supplied

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

72,968 Ltd ("Edufice") M/s CMR Education & Consultancy 5,40,04,850 Services (CECS) M/s Jaista Developers & 5,60,91,232 Constructions (P) Ltd (JDCPL) 6. The Assessing Officer (AO), after examining the terms and conditions governing the transactions between the assessee and the specified persons, made certain observations, which are detailed as under: 1) The trust was reimbursing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

72,968 Ltd ("Edufice") M/s CMR Education & Consultancy 5,40,04,850 Services (CECS) M/s Jaista Developers & 5,60,91,232 Constructions (P) Ltd (JDCPL) 6. The Assessing Officer (AO), after examining the terms and conditions governing the transactions between the assessee and the specified persons, made certain observations, which are detailed as under: 1) The trust was reimbursing

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(vii) applies only to\nprovision made for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural\nadvances.\nBecause of the interpretation so given by Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt, as discussed earlier, there arose a necessity for the\nParliament to clarify that the PBDD allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) shall\napply to all types of advances including advances made

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

disallowance made in the assessment order was denying exemption claimed u/s. 10A of the act on the ground that, the export turnover brought into India does not amount to 75 percent of the total turnover of the STP unit. It was submitted by the assessee that, it treated export credits of the bank account maintained

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 36(1)(vii) makes it amply clear that there shall be only one account of provision for bad and doubtful dets, against which all claims of bad debts actually written off during the year shall be first set off, without any distinction between rural advances and other advances. Thus, only the excess amount of bad debts written off, remaining