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

TDS provisions would attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 17. For these and any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be cancelled and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 4. Disallowance of deduction claimed U/s 36(1)(vii):- Briefly stated 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

24 of 40 the earlier Companies Act, however, that company as a whole was not taken over or acquired but only banking business was acquired by the Acquisition Act. That is the reason why Union Bank of India Ltd. still existed at the point of acquisition and continues till now and the shareholders of ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

24,597/- being provision pertaining to 3 branches, where the population exceeded 10,000 as per latest census. Therefore, Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.1387,81,80,315/- out of total claim of Rs.1695,59,52,309/-. The assessee bank contended before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no requirement in Section 36(1)(viia) that the provision

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

viia) of the Act in terms of the proviso to sec. 36(1)(vii) and sec. 36(2)(v) of the Act. 7.17 In view of the foregoing discussions, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue

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

viia) of the Act in terms of the proviso to sec. 36(1)(vii) and sec. 36(2)(v) of the Act. 7.17 In view of the foregoing discussions, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue

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

viia) would apply to non-rural advances also) is hereby set aside. Hence, we direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance made by the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 12.5 In the result, ground 3 is allowed. APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT (GROUND 4) 13. The assessee-bank had not computed book profit and accordingly

SHREE BASAVESHWAR CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,HUNGUND vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

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

24)(viia) the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction as per section 80P(2) of the Act. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the orders of the authorities below, I have noted as pointed out by the ld. AR of the assessee that the CIT(A) has taken figures wrongly and in what manner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS of Rs.13,62,66,494/- was dropped by the AO during the reassessment proceedings and the second issue was not accepted by the AO for granting deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)/36(1)(viia) of Act. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has also partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. During

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS of Rs.13,62,66,494/- was dropped by the AO during the reassessment proceedings and the second issue was not accepted by the AO for granting deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)/36(1)(viia) of Act. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has also partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. During

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

viia) has also been inserted in clause (24) of Section 2 to provide that the profits and gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members shall be included in the definition of ‘income’. 6. The CBDT vide Circular No. 6/2010 [F.No. 173(3)/44/2009-IT (A-I)] dated

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

viia) has also been inserted in clause (24) of Section 2 to provide that the profits and gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members shall be included in the definition of ‘income’. 6. The CBDT vide Circular No. 6/2010 [F.No. 173(3)/44/2009-IT (A-I)] dated

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

24,63,522/- being depreciation on ATM and other computer equipments by treating the same as plant & Machinery. 10.1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in treating the ATM and other computer equipments as plant & machinery instead of computer, despite various decisions of Hon’ble Tribunal and High Courts favouring the classification adopted by the Appellant

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

viia) has also been inserted in clause (24) of Section 2 to provide that the profits and gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members shall be included in the definition of ‘income’. Page 3 of 13 6. The CBDT vide Circular No. 6/2010 [F.No. 173(3)/44/2009-IT

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

viia) has also been inserted in clause (24) of Section 2 to provide that the profits and gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members shall be included in the definition of ‘income’. Page 3 of 13 6. The CBDT vide Circular No. 6/2010 [F.No. 173(3)/44/2009-IT

SHARAVATHI PATHINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 &

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

viia) has also been inserted in clause (24) of Section 2 to provide that the profits and gains of any business of banking (including providing credit facilities) carried on by a co-operative society with its members shall be included in the definition of ‘income’. Page 3 of 13 6. The CBDT vide Circular No. 6/2010 [F.No. 173(3)/44/2009-IT

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos.4, 5 & 6 are disposed of”. The reliance placed AO on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos.4, 5 & 6 are disposed of”. The reliance placed AO on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case

J.C.I.T vs. M/S CANARA BANK,

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos.4, 5 & 6 are disposed of”. The reliance placed AO on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case

CANARA BANK vs. ADDL.C.I,.T,

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case, as in the earlier years, for the purpose of income-tax proceedings, the investments were treated as stock-in-trade. Thus, grounds of appeal Nos.4, 5 & 6 are disposed of”. The reliance placed AO on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case