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

section 36(1)(viia). Clauses (a) and (b) in Rule 6ABA cannot be given the restricted interpretation. The amounts of advances as outstanding at the last day of each month would be a fluctuating figure depending on the outstanding as increased or reduced respectively by advances made and repayments received. The assessee might provided for bad and doubtful debts

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

section 36(1)(viia). Clauses (a) and (b) in Rule 6ABA cannot be given the restricted interpretation. The amounts of advances as outstanding at the last day of each month would be a fluctuating figure depending on the outstanding as increased or reduced respectively by advances made and repayments received. The assessee might provided for bad and doubtful debts

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

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

1. The Order of the Ld. C1T(A), LTD, Bengaluru dated 31.12.2018 is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) held in law in confirming the method of calculation adopted by the assessee in computing the eligible quantum of provision for bad debts u/s 36(l)(viia) relating to rural advances

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

1. The Order of the Ld. C1T(A), LTD, Bengaluru dated 31.12.2018 is opposed to the law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) held in law in confirming the method of calculation adopted by the assessee in computing the eligible quantum of provision for bad debts u/s 36(l)(viia) relating to rural advances

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. 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

viia) Party allowed 936,90,65,332 2. Disallowance u/s 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

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

viia) of the Act and bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The assessee had submitted a fresh calculation of the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act vide letter dt.10.2.2015 which come to Rs.67.71 Crores and it is in these circumstances that the Assessing Officer disallowed the excess claim amounting to Rs.7

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

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

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

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

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

viia)(a) of the Act. Thus the case made out by the AO stands on a totally different footing. Therefore the decision in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank (supra), in our view, is not relevant to the issue in the present case. 42. For the reasons given above, we allow for statistical purposes Gr.No.3 to 5 raised

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

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