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

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. 41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

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

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 13 of 20 41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case

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

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and loss for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. 41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company other than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing\nsuch accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year\nor part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company\nother than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause (a), for the\npurpose

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 35E(3)(iii) wherein it is specified that, this allowance is not claimable in respect of items of a capital nature, on which depreciation is allowable u/s 32 of the Act. It is seen that the items included by the AO (as extracted in the AO’s order) are in the nature of depreciable items. The assessee

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

depreciation which have been\nadopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and\nloss for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within\nthe relevant previous year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company\nother than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

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

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

depreciation which have been\nadopted for preparing such accounts including statement of profit and\nloss for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within\nthe relevant previous year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company\nother than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

194A, Section 194B, Section 194BB, Section 194C, Section 194D, Section 194E, Section 194EE, Section IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 38 194F, Section 194G, Section 194H, Section 194-I, Section 194J, Section 194K,Section 194L, Section 195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

194A, Section 194B, Section 194BB, Section 194C, Section 194D, Section 194E, Section 194EE, Section IT(TP)A Nos.23 & 61/Bang/20115 M/s.Rambus Chit Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 31 of 38 194F, Section 194G, Section 194H, Section 194-I, Section 194J, Section 194K,Section 194L, Section 195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time

M/S. BANK OF BARODA(ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ADDL.CIT, LTU, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.234/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year: 2015-16\Nm/S. Bank Of Baroda (Erstwhile\Nvijaya Bank)\N2Nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Centre\Nbandra Kurla Complex\Nbandra (East)\Nmumbai 400 051\Npan No: Aaacv4791J\Nappellant\Nvs.\Naddl. Cit\Nltu\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\N:\Nsmt. Lalitha Rameshwaran, A.R.\Nrespondent By\N:\Nsri Rajashekhar M., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N03.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N04.04.2025\No R D E R\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 23.12.2024 Vide Din & Order\Nno. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1071453089(1) Passed U/S 250 Of\Nthe Act (In Short “The Act”) For The Ay 2015-16.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Law & Facts Of The Case.\N2. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice.\N2.

depreciation\nwhich have been adopted for preparing such accounts including\nstatement of profit and loss for such financial year or part of such\nfinancial year falling within the relevant previous year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company\nother than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

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

depreciation\nwhich have been adopted for preparing such accounts including\nstatement of profit and loss for such financial year or part of such\nfinancial year falling within the relevant previous year.\n41. In so far as Clause (a), the same applies to a case of a company\nother than referred to in Clause (b). According to clause

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

depreciation as the amount was only a provision. In support of these grounds (supra), the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of KPTCL Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 59 (Kar) and the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of TE Connectivity

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

depreciation is claimed and allowed Therefore notwithstanding that in the balance feet it is shown as investment, for the purpose of Income Tax Act, it is shown as stock-in-trad. Therefore, the value of the stocks being closely connected with the stock market, at the end of the financial year, while valuing the assets, necessarily the Bank

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. M/S THE SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 194A(3)(v) of the Income- tax Act shall not apply to the payment of interest on time deposits by the co-operative banks to its members. As this amendment is effective from the prospective date of 1st June, 2015, the co-operative bank shall be required to deduct tax from the payment of interest on time deposits