M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

capital, if not immediately required\nto be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they\ndeposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income\nis attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit\nfacilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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

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

56,88,806 Total 269379,91,73,064 260371,10,91,735 264875,51,32,401 19. From the above table, the AO observed that the assessee has not transferred any amount to the special reserve as mentioned in section 36(1)(viii) of the Act . Further the assessee was questioned regarding transfer to special reserve as the section mandates

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

56,88,806 Total 269379,91,73,064 260371,10,91,735 264875,51,32,401 19. From the above table, the AO observed that the assessee has not transferred any amount to the special reserve as mentioned in section 36(1)(viii) of the Act . Further the assessee was questioned regarding transfer to special reserve as the section mandates

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

2. On verification of the computation of Long term Capital Gain,\nit was noticed that the assessee had valued the cost of the land as\nRs.8,45,28,050/- instead of Rs.3,63,23,571/- (Rs.4,42,20,000\n126.5/154) and indexed cost Acquisition worked out to\nRs.13,87,62,210/-\ninstead\nof\nRs.5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: . ITA No.1495 - 1499/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 "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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: . ITA No.1495 - 1499/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 15 "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

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) or the one contained in sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 43CA of the Act, the Tribunal has in the following cases held that in a case where the date of agreement for transfer is different from the date of transfer, the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement

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

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

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 10. Honourable supreme court recently in Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1104 Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. (12.09.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1262/2025

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." 10. Honourable supreme court recently in Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1104 Shivamma (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. (12.09.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1262/2025

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

56,30,000/- being expenditure incurred\ntowards earning exempt income.\n3.1 The teamed CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant Bank\ndoes not incur any expenditure for earning the tax exempt income.\n3.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not following the binding decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court\n4. The learned CIT(A) erred

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

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

56,55,450/- and tax liability of Rs.7,97,86,58,688/-. Further, as\nthe tax computed under section 115JB of the Act was more than the tax\ncomputed under the regular provision of the Act, the AO confirmed the\ndemand under provision of section 115JB of the Act. The AO made various\ndisallowances also. The assessee filed rectification application

BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALLI , HUBBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

viii)\nThe exercise of statutory power under\nsection 263 of the Act is dependent on\nexistence of objective facts ascertained\nfrom prima faciematerial on record. The\nevaluation of such material should show\nthat tax which was lawfully exigible was\nnot imposed. [See Gabriel India Ltd.'s\ncase (supra)].\n7.11\nNow, in the light of the above principles laid down

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules @ 0.5% of average value of investments. Ld. DRP restored the matter to the file of A.O. with the direction to examine this issue afresh by considering the decision rendered by ITAT in the case of Syndicate Bank, by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej &Boyce Manufacturing Company

ADARSHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT SIRSI,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

viii) The exercise of statutory power under section 263 of the Act is dependent\non existence of objective facts ascertained from prima faciematerial on\nrecord. The evaluation of such material should show that tax which was\nlawfully exigible was not imposed. [See Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra)].\n7.11 Now, in the light of the above principles laid down