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

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). Accordingly ground Nos.2.1 to 2.4 are allowed. Ground No.2.5 was not pressed and hence it is dismissed as not pressed. GROUND No. 3 ( 3.1 to 3.2) 18. The appellant bank claimed Rs.58.30 crores as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii). In this regard assessee was asked to substantiate and furnish the working of the deduction claimed. The assessee furnished

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). Accordingly ground Nos.2.1 to 2.4 are allowed. Ground No.2.5 was not pressed and hence it is dismissed as not pressed. GROUND No. 3 ( 3.1 to 3.2) 18. The appellant bank claimed Rs.58.30 crores as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii). In this regard assessee was asked to substantiate and furnish the working of the deduction claimed. The assessee furnished

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. 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) which requires adjustment of bad debts against provision allowed u/s 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

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

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

vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against provision allowed u/s 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

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

vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against provision allowed u/s 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

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,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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed and the cross objections being C

Section 36(1)(vii)" ], "issues": "1. Whether the sales commission paid to a foreign entity is taxable in India as FTS and if TDS

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

vii) considering the fact such amount has not exceeded the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia). At the same time, alternative claim of the assessee that it is to be allowed u/s 37(1), in our view, is acceptable. On a perusal of the assessment order and the facts and materials available on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS and accordingly, deletion of addition made to the assessee’s income in respect of sales commission under section 40(a)(i) is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. The same is, therefore, upheld. The revenue’s this ground of appeal, is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed. Deletion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS and accordingly, deletion of addition made to the assessee’s income in respect of sales commission under section 40(a)(i) is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. The same is, therefore, upheld. The revenue’s this ground of appeal, is, thus, found to be devoid of any merit and therefore, dismissed. Deletion