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

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 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

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

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. 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

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

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

36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.192.02 crores. 6. The next issue urged by the assessee relates to disallowance of payments made to VISA International u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which was confirmed by Ld CIT(A). The revenue is also in appeal

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 ,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

1) is the charging section and it overrides all other provisions of the Act. It provides that the provisions of this section are applicable in case of “every company”. It does not carve out any exception. (b) Sec. 2(17) defines the word “company”. According to this section company “means” any Indian Company. (c) Explanatory Note to Finance

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

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(1

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(1

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

36(1)(viia) of ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 53 of 59 the Act. In the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1493/Bang/2014, we held that for the purpose of calculating Average Aggregate Advances (AAA), only loan outstanding should alone be considered, not fresh advances made during the period. However, this issue was remitted

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

36(1)(viia) of ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 53 of 59 the Act. In the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1493/Bang/2014, we held that for the purpose of calculating Average Aggregate Advances (AAA), only loan outstanding should alone be considered, not fresh advances made during the period. However, this issue was remitted

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

36(1)(viia) of ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 53 of 59 the Act. In the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1493/Bang/2014, we held that for the purpose of calculating Average Aggregate Advances (AAA), only loan outstanding should alone be considered, not fresh advances made during the period. However, this issue was remitted

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

36(1)(viia) of ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 53 of 59 the Act. In the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1493/Bang/2014, we held that for the purpose of calculating Average Aggregate Advances (AAA), only loan outstanding should alone be considered, not fresh advances made during the period. However, this issue was remitted

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

36(1)(viia) of ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 53 of 59 the Act. In the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1493/Bang/2014, we held that for the purpose of calculating Average Aggregate Advances (AAA), only loan outstanding should alone be considered, not fresh advances made during the period. However, this issue was remitted

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

36(1)(viia) of the Act is incorrect and therefore delete the disallowance made there under. Consequently, ground NO.3 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 8. Ground No.4 (4.1 to 4.5) – Depreciation on Investments. 8.1 In these grounds (supra), Revenue assails the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim