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

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income

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)(viia) of the Act. The substantial Questions of law Nos. 1 and 3 framed by this Court, are substantially answered by this Court in l.T.A.Nos.256/2011 and 258/2011 and therefore, the said questions are at-steered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was right in holding that the decoction computed at the rate

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

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

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

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

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

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

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

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

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income

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

gainfully refer to the “MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING FINANCE BILL 2013”, which brings out the intention of the Parliament in inserting Explanation-2 in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It is extracted below:- “Clarification for amount to be eligible for deduction as bad debts in case of banks:- Under the existing provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Income

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

viia) (Ground No 9 to 13) 21. The assessee had made provision and claimed a deduction for Bad and doubtful debts (PBDD) of Rs.992,48,04,092. 21.1. The AO during the course assessment contented that (i) Population of many of the rural branches had already exceeded 10,000 (ii) In several cases it was not rural branche but rather

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

section 36(1)(viia) being an incentive provision should be interpreted liberally. 3.4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in confirming the addition on surmises & conjunctures. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax - Appeals, erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of the depreciation amounting to Rs.786,27,80,441/- on Investments which are stock

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are allowed and Appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunath

viia) of the Act. Accordingly, in view of the fact that when the assessee has strongly contended that the data of 2001 census was not published at the relevant point and following the earlier order of the Tribunal, we remit this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer for verification and identifying the rural branches and then consider

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). 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, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

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). 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, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

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). 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, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

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). 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, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

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). 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, it is quite evident that the amount was waived at the direction of the State Govt. Department

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

viia) & 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The additional grounds sought to be raised in this regard read thus: “(1) Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of Rs.108.53 Cr is not in accordance with the provisions under the Act where bad debts written off was not debited into the profit & loss account. (2) The provision

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

viia) & 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The additional grounds sought to be raised in this regard read thus: “(1) Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of Rs.108.53 Cr is not in accordance with the provisions under the Act where bad debts written off was not debited into the profit & loss account. (2) The provision

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

capital loss and accordingly brought to tax a sum of Rs.151,48,15,234/-. The AO also disallowed deduction of Rs.111,89,71,243/- as loss on Mark to Market loss on Derivatives holding that it is artificial loss. Sundry assets written off of Rs.16,04,126/- was also added to the total income. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

capital loss and accordingly brought to tax a sum of Rs.151,48,15,234/-. The AO also disallowed deduction of Rs.111,89,71,243/- as loss on Mark to Market loss on Derivatives holding that it is artificial loss. Sundry assets written off of Rs.16,04,126/- was also added to the total income. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment