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

36(1)(viii) and in view of the case law relied by the ld. AR in assessee’s own case, we remit the issue to the AO in terms of the above decision. We, therefore direct the AO to examine and allow the assessee’s claim as per law. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground

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

Section 36(1)(vii) by Finance Act, 2013 has not changed the proposition of law as it existed before introduction of such explanation. 2.5.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation 2 was introduced to prevent double deduction in the case of same debt for which deduction was allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). 2.6 The learned

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

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

Section 36(1)(vii) by Finance Act, 2013 has not changed the proposition of law as it existed before introduction of such explanation. 2.5.1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Explanation 2 was introduced to prevent double deduction in the case of same debt for which deduction was allowed u/s 36(1)(viia). 2.6 The learned

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

36(1)(vii)(a) of the Act under Rule 6ABA i.e. ground No.3.1 & 3.4 is decided in favour of assessee as discussed in the order cited (supra) in para 17 of that above order. 16.2 Further, with regard to classification of Rural branches in ground Nos.3.2 & 3.3 is remitted back to the file of ld. AO as discussed in above

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

36(1)(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

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that, it is noticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any specified person is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest is obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section 194A(3) provides that Section 194A(1) shall not apply if the payment

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS has not been paid in respect of interest expense of Rs. 67,04,528 and hence 30% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 is to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section 36

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

TDS has not been paid in respect of interest expense of Rs. 67,04,528 and hence 30% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 20,11,358 is to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section 36

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.1258.47 crores. 7. The next issue contested by the assessee relates to the applicability of sec.115JB of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee did not compute book profit, as according to the assessee the provisions of sec.115JB

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

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

section would not apply to non-rural advances. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A).” 5.4 Following the above said decision, we hold that the view expressed by Ld CIT(A) is not legally correct. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) with regard to his alternative decision

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

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

36(1)(vii), as proviso to the said section would not apply to non-rural advances. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A).” ITA No.1678/Bang/2018 & ITA No.234/PAN/2018 Union Bank of India, Mumbai Page 9 of 17 5.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. Following the decision rendered

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

section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-bank. This issue was also decided by us against the revenue in the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.1035/Bang/2013. For the same reasoning, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal viz., ITA No.931/Bang/2016 for assessment year 2011-12: 34. The assessee-bank raised the following grounds

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

section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-bank. This issue was also decided by us against the revenue in the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.1035/Bang/2013. For the same reasoning, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal viz., ITA No.931/Bang/2016 for assessment year 2011-12: 34. The assessee-bank raised the following grounds

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

section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-bank. This issue was also decided by us against the revenue in the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.1035/Bang/2013. For the same reasoning, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal viz., ITA No.931/Bang/2016 for assessment year 2011-12: 34. The assessee-bank raised the following grounds

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

section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-bank. This issue was also decided by us against the revenue in the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.1035/Bang/2013. For the same reasoning, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal viz., ITA No.931/Bang/2016 for assessment year 2011-12: 34. The assessee-bank raised the following grounds

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

section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-bank. This issue was also decided by us against the revenue in the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.1035/Bang/2013. For the same reasoning, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. Assessee’s appeal viz., ITA No.931/Bang/2016 for assessment year 2011-12: 34. The assessee-bank raised the following grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 36 (1) (ii), examine the shareholding of these three directors and then decide whether the payment is made to these directors who are the Page 16 of 18 shareholders of the assessee company in the ratio of their shareholding or not. The learned CIT – A is also directed to look into the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High

M/S. BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

36(1)(va). Ground No 1 .5 and 6 ( See detailed submission in paragraph 1 of the paperbook ( pages 1 to 9 and Annexures 1,2,3 and 4 and Annexures-10 to 17) 4.a) The return now processed is an incomplete return, permitted to be filed under Section 139D without all the documents required to accompany the returns