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

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

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, , BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

36(1)(viii) of the Act is required to be considered while allowing the assessee’s claim for the deduction under the said section. We, therefore direct the AO to examine and allow the assessee’s claim accordingly. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) (Ground 5) 26. The assessee has paid Rs.29

ACIT, HUBLI vs. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

viii) of the Act. The AO will consider the contentions put forth by the assessee and decide the issue afresh affording opportunity being heard to the assessee. ITA Nos.673, 674 & 684/B/14 14 21. Ground Nos.5 and 6 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 22. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed. 23. Ground

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

viii)of the Act. For the reasons given by us in the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.979/Bang/2013 in Ground of appeal No. 3, we remit this issue to the file of the AO to re- ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 44 of 59 compute profits of eligible business

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

viii)of the Act. For the reasons given by us in the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.979/Bang/2013 in Ground of appeal No. 3, we remit this issue to the file of the AO to re- ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 44 of 59 compute profits of eligible business

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

viii)of the Act. For the reasons given by us in the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.979/Bang/2013 in Ground of appeal No. 3, we remit this issue to the file of the AO to re- ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 44 of 59 compute profits of eligible business

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

viii)of the Act. For the reasons given by us in the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.979/Bang/2013 in Ground of appeal No. 3, we remit this issue to the file of the AO to re- ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 44 of 59 compute profits of eligible business

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

viii)of the Act. For the reasons given by us in the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.979/Bang/2013 in Ground of appeal No. 3, we remit this issue to the file of the AO to re- ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 44 of 59 compute profits of eligible business

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

viii) Disallowance u/s.14A Rs.24,91,38,500 ix) Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) – payment Rs.8,05,15,590 made to NPCI x) Amortisation of Premium in respect of Rs.88,31,63,478 HTM category of investments. xi) Profit on sale of shares of CARE Ltd. Rs.161,89,97,600 xii) Depreciation on ATM Rs.7,24,63,522 xiii) Disallowance u/s.40

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

viii) contribution to the prime minister's national relief fund 8[or Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund)] or any other fund set up by the central govt. for socio economic development and relief and welfare of the schedule caste, tribes, other backward classes, minorities and women; [(ix) (a) Contribution to incubators

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

1 Taxman 280 (Calcutta) (vii) Churakulam Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 81 Taxman 214 (Kerala) (viii) CIT v. India United Mills Ltd. (1978) 112 ITR 129 (Bombay).  The CBDT vide its undernoted circular (Circular No.35-D (Xivii- 20) (F.No.10/48/65-It(A-1)], dated 24.11.1965 has accepted the above ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of deprecation. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure and therefore, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act are not attracted on such deduction. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of deprecation. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure and therefore, the provisions of sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act are not attracted on such deduction. This view has been fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

36(1)(viii) & 72A. Apart from that,\nit is noticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which provides that if any\nspecified person is responsible for paying to a resident any income by\nway of interest is obliged to deduct tax at source, however, Section\n194A(3) provides that Section 194A(1) shall not apply if the payment\nhas

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

36(1)(viii) & 72A.\nApart from that, it is noticed that, Section 194A(1) of the Act which\nprovides that if any specified person is responsible for paying to a\nresident any income by way of interest is obliged to deduct tax at\nsource, however, Section 194A(3) provides that Section 194A(1) shall\nnot apply if the payment