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

vii) of the Act without adjusting the same against the PBDD a/c, since the said PBDD a/c relates to rural advances only.” 5. Respectfully following the above decision of the coordinate Bench, we allow this ground in above terms. 6. GROUND No. 03 is alternate ground of 02, since we have decided the ground No. 02 in above terms, therefore

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

vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 13.04.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made

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

vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 13.04.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify the claims made

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

section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act in the absence of any appeal or any cross- objection filed by it against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Court after considering several judicial pronouncements on the subject held as follows: “We are therefore of the view that it is permissible on the part

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

section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act in the absence of any appeal or any cross- objection filed by it against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Court after considering several judicial pronouncements on the subject held as follows: “We are therefore of the view that it is permissible on the part

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

68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317/-. The claim of assessee u/s. 36(1)(vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1

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

68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317/-. The claim of assessee u/s. 36(1)(vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1

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

68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317/-. The claim of assessee u/s. 36(1)(vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

vii) of the Act, for its application. Page 5 IT(IT)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Considering the submissions and respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688, we are admitting

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. 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

vii) 1008,00,06,232 6. The CIT(A) in relation to applicability of provisions of section 115JB of the Act, did not allow ground that section M/s.Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) 115JB is not applicable to the assessee. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal of the assessee-bank in respect of additions made to the book

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. It was also held that alternatively, the payments can also be considered for the use of process provided by the taxpayer and therefore, royalty under the Act. The Hon’ble Court also held that even if the payment is not treated as one for the use of the equipment

M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION), CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. It was also held that alternatively, the payments can also be considered for the use of process provided by the taxpayer and therefore, royalty under the Act. The Hon’ble Court also held that even if the payment is not treated as one for the use of the equipment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

9(1)(vi) royalty income will be taxable in India whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India. 11.9. The Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics (345 ITR 494) (Kar) had occasion to examine the term "royalty" vis-à-vis "computer software". The Hon’ble Court observed

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

vii) is deleted. Depreciation on ATM (Ground No 3) 14. The assessee installed ATM machines and claimed depreciation @ 60% on ATM’s by treating the same as the block relating to computer. The AO during the course of asst. restricted the depreciation claimed to 15% by treating the ATM as plant & Machiner and disallowed a depreciation to the extent

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

68 taxmann.com 8) and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (2009)(310 ITR 320) were preferred over the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd (supra), in the absence of any decision rendered on this issue

M/S ORKLA ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and were not, therefore, chargeable to tax in India under the provisions of the Act.  The learned AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in not appreciating that professional services provided by the Appellant to MTR Foods Pvt. Ltd. is not taxable as FTS under the India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance

TELEFONICA DE ESPANA SA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

vii) of the Act (as Ground no 3 Ground no 3 Ground no 3. 'royalty' and 'fees for and 4 - and 4- 3,4,5,and 6 - technical services') and under Pressed Pressed Pressed Article 13 of India-Spain DTAA 5. Interest under section 234A, Ground no 5- Ground no 5- Ground no 7- 23B & 234C Pressed Pressed Pressed

M/S. TELEFONICA DE ESPANA SA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2021 & 817/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa, C/O. Bsr & Co.Llp, 3Rd Floor, Pebble The Acit(It)/Dcit(It), Beach, Circle – 2(2), Embassy Golf Links Bangalore. Business Park, Vs. Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aahct0411G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr

vii) of the Act (as Ground no 3 Ground no 3 Ground no 3. 'royalty' and 'fees for and 4 - and 4- 3,4,5,and 6 - technical services') and under Pressed Pressed Pressed Article 13 of India-Spain DTAA 5. Interest under section 234A, Ground no 5- Ground no 5- Ground no 7- 23B & 234C Pressed Pressed Pressed