M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts

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

68,82,138/-. The ld. AO has raised a demand of Rs.1086,07,00,024/- after charging interest u/s 234B of the Act as per the normal provisions of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

M/S. BANK OF BARODA(ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT, LTU, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.234/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year: 2015-16\Nm/S. Bank Of Baroda (Erstwhile\Nvijaya Bank)\N2Nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Centre\Nbandra Kurla Complex\Nbandra (East)\Nmumbai 400 051\Npan No: Aaacv4791J\Nappellant\Nvs.\Naddl. Cit\Nltu\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\N:\Nsmt. Lalitha Rameshwaran, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nsri Rajashekhar M., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N03.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N04.04.2025\No R D E R\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 23.12.2024 Vide Din & Order\Nno. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071453089(1) Passed U/S 250 Of\Nthe Act (In Short “The Act”) For The Ay 2015-16.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Law & Facts Of The Case.\N2. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.\N2.

68,383/- under the regular provisions and also held\nthat the provisions of section 115JB of the Act was applicable to the\nassessee bank and determined the book profit at\nRs.447,95,02,243/-.\n3.1 Thereafter, the assessee bank preferred an appeal against the\nsaid original assessment order before the ld. CIT(A). The 1d. CIT(A)\nvide

MR. SANDEEP SAMANTHA,MANGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Sandeep Samantha, Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of D.No.2-1-7/7, Shop No.2, Income-Tax, Manasa Residency, Chilimbi, Urwa, Cpc- Tds, Mangaluru – 575 006. Ghaziabad. Pan : Axlps 5874 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, Add. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Mangaluru Dated 16.01.2019 For Assessment Year 2016-17 In Respect Of Filing Of Form No.26Q For Quarter No.1 Of The Financial Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

68 ITD 390 (Mumbai). The object of introducing section 234E to curb a situation where tax was used to be deducted but statement would not be uploaded by the assessees and such inaction on the part of the assessee would deprive the department to give credit to the person in whose account tax was deducted. In the instant case

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act\nwhich is only applicable in respect of share application money,\nshare capital, share premium or any such amount by\nwhatever name called and is not applicable to ordinary loans\nand in reproduction of the proviso in para 4.4, Ld. AO has\nconveniently and intendedly ignored the phrase \"share\n\nPage 6 of 29\nITA

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1& TPS, BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Cooperative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Cooperative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co-operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would be entitled

SRI SRI VAISHNAVI PATTINA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,GANGAVATHI vs. ITO WARD 1, KOPPAL, KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Sri Sri Vaishnavi Pattina Souharda Sahakari Vs. Ito, Sangha Niyamita, Ward – 1, Shop No.9 T.A.P.C.M.S Complex, Koppal. C.B.S Gunj Gangavathi Dt- Koppal 583227,Karnataka. Pan : Aalas 9104 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Deepak, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

194A(3)(v) of the Act is not applicable. As per this section of the Act, the Co-operative Societies are not required to withhold tax if the payment is made to members or any other Co-operative Society. Without prejudice, he further submitted that if the addition is confirmed under section

M/S. SHRI MAHISHASURAMARDINI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3)(v) of the Act excluding the Co-operative Banks from the definition of "Co- operative Society" by Finance Act, 2015 and requiring them to deduct income tax at source under Section 194A of the Act also makes the legislative intent clear that the Co- operative Banks are not that specie of genus co-operative society, which would

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

68,638/- only. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 4. The Ld. PCIT, Bengaluru upon examination of the assessment records was of the view that the assessment order passed by the AO was without making necessary enquiries or verification and it was prejudicial to the interest

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi ) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9;” 35. Under Section 194A of the Act which is a section appearing in Part XVIIB

M/S. VOLVO GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VOLVO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD) LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

68 but no invoices Biocon. Accordingly, since no received from the amount was ultimately found to be vendors payable, there was no requirement to deduct TDS and hence, the provisions of section 201 were not applicable (refer Para 10.3 of Biocon). Page 7 of 31 3. Provision created for 9,46,447 The aforesaid payments pertain to 69 payments

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HOSPET vs. GAYATRI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, HOSPET, HOSPET

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

68,976/- is not warranted and therefore the same was deleted.\niii) Further, as far as payments made on Audit fee of Rs.50,000/-\nand commission payment of Rs.5,12,299/-, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is of the view that the assessee has not complied with the provisions\n\nof the section 194J & 194H of the Act respectively

ABHINAVASRI VIVIDODESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA KANAKAGIRI ,KOPPAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , KOPPAL

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2017-18

194A(3) of Act. Therefore the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on Audit fees paid. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.14,100/- is confirmed.” 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSURU vs. SHRI. H OMKARAPPA (HUF), SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. H. Omkarappa, (Huf), Ward - 1, #3, A Block, Apmc Yard, Shivamogga Sagar Road, Shivamogga. Pan : Aabhh 1124 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Shri. S. Ramasubramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R

V. Vasudevan, Vice President : This is an appeal by the Revenue against order dated 29.07.2019 of CIT(A)-2, Panaji, relating to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee is a HUF carrying on the business of trading in arecanut under the name and style of M/s. N.R. Halagappa & Sons at APMC Yard, Shimoga. A survey u/s 133A was conducted

BASAVA ROAWAYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,SEDAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA, GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

68,01,670 . ITA No.565 /Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 Total 18,09,24,854 6. Considering the above receipts of Rs. 18,09,24,854 reflected in Form 26AS, the AO proceeded to estimate the income of the assessee by applying a profit rate of 2.44 percent, which was adopted based on the assessee’s earlier return of income