M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors and genuineness of transactions. Moreover, loans had been granted through banking channels and copy of bank statements also had been provided. vii. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had returned majority of the amount received as advance before

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

211 had held that “residential unit house”, used in section 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislature to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if that was the intention, they would have used the word

BASAPPA RAMESH,BANGALORE vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

211 of paper book), audited financials, and ITRs. The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that cash collected from patients Page 4 of 11 as per the details furnished is accumulated and deposited when demonitisation was announced. The assessee also submitted that in return of income filed for the year under consideration the assessee has declared the income from consultancy

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,383/- under the regular provisions and also held that the provisions of section 115JB of the Act was applicable to the assessee bank and determined the book profit at Rs.447,95,02,243/-. 3.1 Thereafter, the assessee bank preferred an appeal against the said original assessment order before the ld. CIT(A). The 1d. CIT(A) vide

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

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

68,82,138/-. The ld. AO has raised a demand of\nRs.1086,07,00,024/- after charging interest u/s 234B of the Act as\nper the normal provisions of the Act.\n3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in\nappeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Id. CIT(A) partly allowed the\nappeal

NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 234B of the Act 6. Ground No. 1 and 2 being general does not warrant separate adjudication. Ground No.14 is not pressed and hence dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.15 & and 16 are consequential. Out of the 8 grounds raised for TP adjustment, the assessee vide Ground No.7 (a) Page 4 of 24 sought exclusion of 13 companies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

68,494/- under section 2 (22) (e) of the Act protectively. 5. Aggrieved by additions made by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 6. The Ld.CIT(A) disposed off the appeal vide order dated 26/09/2016 partly allowing the appeal with respect to the income computed under regular provisions of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) however upheld

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

68,82,781 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 10% of the Bad & Doubtful Debts in the AY 2004-05. ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 17 of 49 18. The AO was of the view that just as how the Assessee has adjusted the PBDD in respect of rural advances, it ought to have adjusted PBDD in respect

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

68,82,781 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 10% of the Bad & Doubtful Debts in the AY 2004-05. ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 17 of 49 18. The AO was of the view that just as how the Assessee has adjusted the PBDD in respect of rural advances, it ought to have adjusted PBDD in respect

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

M/S KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KHARKANE LTD. vs. DCIT,

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2010-11

68,290 Mysore Rs.8,77,285/- not Rs.1,00,286/- Opening debit MESCOM- 5 51,33,199 50,45,778 52,21,267 balance Mangalore Rs.51,33,846 7.3 A close scrutiny of materials available on record, facts emerged as under :- (i)Goods supplied to the consumer on prevailing market rate not as per the price determined/notified by IEEMA. During

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

211 Taxman 453/24 taxmann.com 98 (Delhi), the court did not express any opinion as to whether Section 153 A can be invoked in a case where no incriminating material was found during the search as it was in fact dealing with a case where incriminating material had been found. ITA Nos.613 & 614/Bang/2014 Page

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

68,059 subject to verification) 6. Difference in books written off (allowed 1,23,383 subject to verification) 7. Sundry assets written off (allowed subject 4,19,94,874 to verification) 8. Provision for wage revision 240,00,00,000 9. Staff welfare expenses 20,00,00,000 10. Provision for leave encashment 97,32,00,000 11. Provision

M/S. CORPORATION BANK,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S & Ita No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2014-15

section 11 of the ITA No.1109/Bang/2019, 1680/Bang/2018, 164/Pnj/2019 & 235/Pan/2018 Page 28 of 44 Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1980. (k) Various decisions relied upon by the assessee relate to the period prior to the amendment made by Finance Act 2012. 7.3 Before us, the Ld A.R reiterated that the provisions of sec.115JB will not apply

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

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

68,556/- stating that the objective as advancement of any other object of the general public utility. On verification of the same, it is noticed that the Form No.10 is belated as the same was not filed along with return of income within the due date as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee