Canara Bank v. JCIT

60 ITR (Trib) 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#2487 most cited

What is Canara Bank v. JCIT authority for?

For banks, the computation of bad debt allowance under sections 36(1)(vii) or 36(1)(viia) must be restricted to only incremental advances, rejecting broader interpretations by tax authorities.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Canara Bank v. JCIT · bad debt allowance for banks · section 36(1)(vii) · section 36(1)(viia) · incremental advances computation · provision for bad and doubtful debts · bank income tax deductions · ITAT Bangalore

Also reported as

68 Taxmann.com 128182 TTJ 203

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 115JBSection 10(38)Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(2)(v)section 3asection 4asection 46section 61section 36(1)(viia)section 211section 36(2)section 210section 10(35)section 36(1)(vii)section 115ja

Judgments citing Canara Bank v. JCIT

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 389/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

…s has been done by the authorities below. It was submitted that this issue has ITA Nos.388 & 389/Bang/2023 Page 23 of 27 been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank v. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]" 10. It is further held that the said decision has been followed in Vijaya Bank case. The manner in which the computation has been made has been given in the case of Vijaya Bank Case. Order passed by the Tribunal in Canara Bank's case followed in Vijaya Bank case has attained finality and the Revenue has not challenged the said…

M/S. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 388/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 5

…s has been done by the authorities below. It was submitted that this issue has ITA Nos.388 & 389/Bang/2023 Page 23 of 27 been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank v. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]" 10. It is further held that the said decision has been followed in Vijaya Bank case. The manner in which the computation has been made has been given in the case of Vijaya Bank Case. Order passed by the Tribunal in Canara Bank's case followed in Vijaya Bank case has attained finality and the Revenue has not challenged the said…

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

ITA 229/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…ch month separately and divided the resultant figure by number of months comprised therein. There was no stipulation in the rule that only the fresh advances during the month should be considered. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Canara Bank, 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT Bang.) Nizambad Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT Hyderabad DCIT v. Madurai Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib.) DCIT v. Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 dated 30.10.2009 PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank 2018 (5) TMI 903 – Calcutta High Court. 24. The AO, howev…

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

ITA 228/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…ch month separately and divided the resultant figure by number of months comprised therein. There was no stipulation in the rule that only the fresh advances during the month should be considered. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Canara Bank, 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT Bang.) Nizambad Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT Hyderabad DCIT v. Madurai Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib.) DCIT v. Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 dated 30.10.2009 PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank 2018 (5) TMI 903 – Calcutta High Court. 24. The AO, howev…

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

ITA 227/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha R., AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

…ch month separately and divided the resultant figure by number of months comprised therein. There was no stipulation in the rule that only the fresh advances during the month should be considered. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- Canara Bank, 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (ITAT Bang.) Nizambad Dist. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT Hyderabad DCIT v. Madurai Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 194 (Chennai Trib.) DCIT v. Union Bank Ltd. in ITA No.1485/Mds/07 dated 30.10.2009 PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank 2018 (5) TMI 903 – Calcutta High Court. 24. The AO, howev…

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

ITA 528/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…d and nothing can be read into it as has been done by the AO. It was submitted that this issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co- M/s. Bank of Baroda ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank Vs, JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]. He further submitted that the case law relied by the AO is not applicable on the present facts of the case. 52. We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the issue before us in respect of computation of the deduction u/…

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

ITA 321/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CA&For Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 194JSection 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…d and nothing can be read into it as has been done by the AO. It was submitted that this issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co- M/s. Bank of Baroda ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank Vs, JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]. He further submitted that the case law relied by the AO is not applicable on the present facts of the case. 52. We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the issue before us in respect of computation of the deduction u/…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Canara Bank

ITA/207/2019HC Karnataka05 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 14ASection 260Section 36(1)

…od of making provision has been approved by the Calcutta High Court in Uttarabanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank case. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 5 (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 6 ITA No.915 & 845/Bang/2017 dated 05.01.2018 8 ITA No. 207 OF 2019 C/W ITA No. 208 OF 2019 9. In Para 7.2 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has recorded thus, "7.2 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee reiterated the submission that the language of Rule 6ABA is very clear and does…

Mapei Construction Products (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 283/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 & B01, Solus Jain Commissioner Of Heights, Income Tax, 1St Floor, 1St Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. Pan: Aahcm0464A Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee By Ca : Shri Janardhan, Addl. Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Under National Assessment Centre, New Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2016- 17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Jurisdiction 1.1. That The Learned Lower Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Referring The Case To The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanyam
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 283/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Mapei Construction Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant A01 and B01, Solus Jain Commissioner of Heights, Income Tax, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, Circle 4 (1)(2), J C Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 002. PAN: AAHCM0464A APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri S. Ramasubramanyam, Assessee by CA : Shri Janardhan, Addl. CIT Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 04-03-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, J…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1907/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish
Section 14A

…nsidered and nothing can be read into it as has been done by the authorities below. It was submitted that this issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]. 7.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative for revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 7.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the issue before us; i.e. in respect of the com…

M/S. Corporation Bank, Mangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 1109/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ITA No.1680/Bang/2018 Assessment year : 2015-16 & 2014-15 Union Bank of India, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Circle-2(1), Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mangaluru. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. PAN – AAACC 724 5 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT & 235/Pan/2018 Assessment year : 2015-16 & 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Union Bank of India, Circle-2(1), (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mangaluru. Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point,…

Syndicate Bank vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed in

ITA/783/2018HC Karnataka18 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 115JSection 260Section 260ASection 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.783 OF 2018 BETWEEN: SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE MANIPAL-576104 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MR. G.MOHAN RAO PAH: AACCS4699E ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURYANARAYANA T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, UDUPI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE.…

Ritu Mittal, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

ITA 435/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2015-16 Smt. Neelam Mittal, : Appellant 35, Mangaldeep, Adarsh Colony, Burhanpur (M.P) PAN : AJIPM9958J V/s ITO, Burhanpur : Respondent Assessment Year 2015-16 Smt. Ritu Mittal, : Appellant 35, Mangaldeep, Adarsh Colony, Burhanpur (M.P) PAN : AHVPM9575E V/s ITO, Burhanpur : Respondent Smt. Neelam Mittal & Anr ITA No.434 & 435/Ind/2019 Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Pankaj Shah, CA Dat…

Neelam Mittal, Burhanpur vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

In the result, all grounds raised by the assessee(s) are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee in ITANo

ITA 434/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2015-16 Smt. Neelam Mittal, : Appellant 35, Mangaldeep, Adarsh Colony, Burhanpur (M.P) PAN : AJIPM9958J V/s ITO, Burhanpur : Respondent Assessment Year 2015-16 Smt. Ritu Mittal, : Appellant 35, Mangaldeep, Adarsh Colony, Burhanpur (M.P) PAN : AHVPM9575E V/s ITO, Burhanpur : Respondent Smt. Neelam Mittal & Anr ITA No.434 & 435/Ind/2019 Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Pankaj Shah, CA Dat…

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-bank is partly allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s not related to eligible business and failed to appreciate the fact that the method of computation adopted by the assessee is the most appropriate method. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bengluru). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee claimed before the AO that it being a banking company engaged in providing long term finance to industrial, agricultural and development of infrastructure facilities in India (called eligible business) is eligible to claim deduction of 20% of the profits from this eligible…

DCIT Circle 2(1), Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-bank is partly allowed

ITA 3197/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 54/Chny/2018 "नधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Registered & Central Office, V. Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle 2(1), Karur 639002. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aaact 3373J

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…s not related to eligible business and failed to appreciate the fact that the method of computation adopted by the assessee is the most appropriate method. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bengluru). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee claimed before the AO that it being a banking company engaged in providing long term finance to industrial, agricultural and development of infrastructure facilities in India (called eligible business) is eligible to claim deduction of 20% of the profits from this eligible…

Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

…nsidered and nothing can be read into it as has been done by the authorities below. It was submitted that this issue has been considered and decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Canara Bank Vs. JCIT (2017) 60 ITR (Trib) 1 [ITAT (Bang)]. 7.3 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative for revenue placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 7.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. We find that the issue before us; i.e. in respect of the c…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1249/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1248 & 1249/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Punjab & Sind Bank, Vs. DCIT, HO. Accounts & Audit Circle-14(1), New Delhi Department, First Floor, 21, Rajinder Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACP1206G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.05.2018 Date of pronouncement 12.06.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, b…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1248 & 1249/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Punjab & Sind Bank, Vs. DCIT, HO. Accounts & Audit Circle-14(1), New Delhi Department, First Floor, 21, Rajinder Place, New Delhi PAN :AAACP1206G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Vivek Gupta, CA Department by Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.05.2018 Date of pronouncement 12.06.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, b…

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Raghavendra Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Jha, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. & Appellant Respondent No. Asst. year 1 753/Bang/2011 Asst. Commissioner of M/s.Karnataka Bank Ltd. (2008-09) Income-tax, Circle 2(1),’ Near Mahaveer Circle, Mangalore. Pumpwell, Mangalore. PAN:AABCT 5589 K 2 1334/Bang/2012 M/s. Karnataka Bank Ltd. Asst. Commissioner of (2009-10) Mangalore. Income-tax, Circle 2(1),’ Mangalore. 3 1396/Bang/2012 Asst. Commissioner of M/s.Karnataka Bank Ltd. (2009-10) Income-tax, Circle 2(1),’ Mangalore. Mangalore. 4 1335/Bang…