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

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. " 56. Thus, the understanding of the above amendment to section 115JB is where a company which are not required u/s 211 (129) of the Companies Act to prepare their

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

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year. " 56. Thus, the understanding of the above amendment to section 115JB is where a company which are not required u/s 211 (129) of the Companies Act to prepare their

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation was reduced to the extent of Rs.50,25,197. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.1502,69,05,350 under regular provisions and at Rs.1848,74,25,220 under MAT provisions after making certain disallowances. 6. The first common issue that arises for consideration

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation was reduced to the extent of Rs.50,25,197. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.1502,69,05,350 under regular provisions and at Rs.1848,74,25,220 under MAT provisions after making certain disallowances. 6. The first common issue that arises for consideration

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation was reduced to the extent of Rs.50,25,197. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2018 determining total income at Rs.1502,69,05,350 under regular provisions and at Rs.1848,74,25,220 under MAT provisions after making certain disallowances. 6. The first common issue that arises for consideration

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

vii) being the non-rural write off by the bank. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 565,92,40,708/- u/s 36(1)(viia). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 58,30,00,000/- u/s 36(1

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

vii) being the non-rural write off by the bank. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 565,92,40,708/- u/s 36(1)(viia). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 58,30,00,000/- u/s 36(1

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.

depreciation only for income tax purposes, both the assessee and the assessing officer shall ensure that the profit/loss arising on sale of these investments should be ascertained by considering the value of investments as per income tax records and not as per books of account. 5. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to the disallowance made

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

vii) is deleted. Depreciation on ATM (Ground No 3) 14. The assessee installed ATM machines and claimed depreciation @ 60% on ATM’s by treating the same as the block relating to computer. The AO during the course of asst. restricted the depreciation claimed to 15% by treating the ATM as plant & Machiner and disallowed a depreciation to the extent

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, UDUPI

In the result, grounds 6 and 9 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

36(1)(vii) 1008,00,06,232 6. The CIT(A) in relation to applicability of provisions of section 115JB of the Act, did not allow ground that section M/s.Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) 115JB is not applicable to the assessee. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal of the assessee-bank in respect of additions made to the book

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

vii) considering the fact such amount has not exceeded the provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 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

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

section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 3,88,25,673. However, as far as deduction of Rs. 18,79,704 is concerned

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

section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 3,88,25,673. However, as far as deduction of Rs. 18,79,704 is concerned

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

section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 3,88,25,673. However, as far as deduction of Rs. 18,79,704 is concerned

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

section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 3,88,25,673. However, as far as deduction of Rs. 18,79,704 is concerned

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

section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(viia). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting addition of Rs. 3,88,25,673. However, as far as deduction of Rs. 18,79,704 is concerned

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

vii) by Finance Act 2013, were considered in the above order. Accordingly, in the case of assessee also we set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct the AO to examine the claim of the assessee in the light of the discussion of the Tribunal in the case of 28 ITA Nos.1264 & 1352(B)/13 M/s ING Vysa

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

Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act which provides that in the case of an assessee to which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount by which such debt or part thereof exceeds the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account