GLOBAL SECURITY SERVICES ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the Page 6 of 14 assessee to comply with those conditions, would render

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

iii) The second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 129 (earlier provision 211) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not applicable to the assessee. (iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed

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

iii) The second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 129 (earlier provision 211) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not applicable to the assessee. (iv) Under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 provides that "for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, every corresponding new bank shall be deemed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

iii) Clause (c) is applicable to a public financial institution or a\nState financial corporation or a State industrial investment\ncorporation. The quantum of deduction is 5% of total income\n(computed before making any deduction under this clause and\nChapter VIA).\n(iv) Clause (d) is applicable to Non-banking financial company\nfrom AY 2017-18.\nThe

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

iii) Clause (c) is applicable to a public financial institution or a\nState financial corporation or a State industrial investment\ncorporation. The quantum of deduction is 5% of total income\n(computed before making any deduction under this clause and\nChapter VIA).\n(iv) Clause (d) is applicable to Non-banking financial company\nfrom AY 2017-18.\nThe

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

iii) Clause (c) is applicable to a public financial institution or a State financial corporation or a State industrial investment corporation. The quantum of deduction is 5% of total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA).\n(iv) Clause (d) is applicable to Non-banking financial company from AY 2017-18.\n\nThe

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), MANGALURU, MANGALURU vs. KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and\n2017-18 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

iii) Clause (c) is applicable to a public financial institution or a\nState financial corporation or a State industrial investment\ncorporation. The quantum of deduction is 5% of total income\n(computed before making any deduction under this clause and\nChapter VIA).\n(iv) Clause (d) is applicable to Non-banking financial company\nfrom AY 2017-18.\nThe

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

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

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the view taken by the Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for 'technical services' rendered is not an appropriate view. Such charges, really, are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

iii) Decision of the Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of M/s. C.R. Auluck & Sons Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.915/Chd/2008 dated 30.6.2010, wherein held as under: “3. The only issue in the present appeal is against the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,82,695/- . The brief facts of the case are that

THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranthe Karnataka Bank Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 2(1) Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Mangalore Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle – 2(1) The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Mangalore Head Office, Mahaveera Circle Vs. Kankanady Mangalore 575002 Pan – Aabct5589K Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Ca Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27-03-2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Mangaluru & They Relate To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Banking Company Carrying On Banking Business. The Karnataka Bank Ltd.

36(1)(viia) 4. The first issue relates to the disallowance of depreciation claimed on Investments held to Maturity. The AO noticed that the assessee has revalued the investments held to maturity as at the yearend and the fall in the value was claimed as depreciation in their value amounting to Rs.436.81 crores as deduction. The AO noticed that

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

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).” 5.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. Following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case

M/S. ADVAITH MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

36. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 – Depreciation on HTM Securities. In these grounds, Revenue assails the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.380,06,33,654 towards depreciation on HTM Securities. From a perusal of the record before us, we find that the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

36 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 setting up new business of Rs. 6,70,78,483/- treating it as revenue in nature." 9.9 The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) Reliance Hypermart Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) ii) Olive Bar & Kitchen (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 102 taxmann.com 98 (Mum Trib.) iii)Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S COFFEEDAY GLOBAL LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coffee Day Global Limited, Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vittal Mallya Road, Queen’S Road, Bengaluru-560 001. Bengaluru-560 001. [Pan: Aabca 5291P]

36 I.T.A. Nos.3040 & 3041/Bang/2018 setting up new business of Rs. 6,70,78,483/- treating it as revenue in nature." 9.9 The Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions: i) Reliance Hypermart Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT, Mumbai) ii) Olive Bar & Kitchen (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 102 taxmann.com 98 (Mum Trib.) iii)Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT

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

iii) Development of Housing in India. The computation made by the assessee-bank in respect of said activities is as under: ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 8 of 59 The AO was of the opinion that ratio of expenditure to income is 89.33% at entity level. Therefore AO held that deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) is excessive

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

iii) Development of Housing in India. The computation made by the assessee-bank in respect of said activities is as under: ITA Nos.979 & 1035/B/13 .......903/B/16 Canara Bank Page 8 of 59 The AO was of the opinion that ratio of expenditure to income is 89.33% at entity level. Therefore AO held that deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viii) is excessive