M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

disallowance of Rs.192.02 crores. 7.5 The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has rendered his decision by following his decision rendered in AY 2013-14 and earlier years. He submitted that Finance Act, 2013 has inserted “Explanation 2” in sec. 36(1)(vii) of the Act and the same reads as under:- “Explanation 2 – For the removal

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue 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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance u/s\n36(1)(vii) of the Act of Rs.1073,95,04,388/- being the bad debts\nwritten off by the non-rural branches of the assessee's bank.\n9.\nFacts of the case are that The assessee claimed a sum of\nRs.1073.95 crore as bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act related to\nnon-rural branches

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALORE vs. THE KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act of Rs.1073,95,04,388/- being the bad debts written off by the non-rural branches of the assessee’s bank. 9. Facts of the case are that The assessee claimed a sum of Rs.1073.95 crore as bad debts u/s 36(1 )(vii) of the Act related to non-rural branches

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

disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1)(a) while processing the returns of income. At the time of filing of returns of income by the assessee for the respective assessment years, the law prevailing on the said date allowed the assessee to claim deduction of employees' contribution

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

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

disallowance should not be made u/s. 43B(b) towards employer’s contribution to PF/ESI. However the employees’ contribution to PF/ESI is governed by section 36(1)(va) and in this case the assessee deposited belatedly the employees’ contribution as per the respective Act. Further during the course of hearing, the ld. AR also raised the issue that the addition cannot

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

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D.\n\n13. Ground No.3 regarding deduction 36(1)(vii) is also common for both the years. The brief facts for AY 2016-17 are that while computing the taxable income, the Appellant bank had claimed a deduction of Rs. 303,86,90,303/- u/s 36(1)(vii), in respect of non-rural debts written

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

disallowance u/s. 14A\nr.w. Rule 8D.\n13.\nGround No.3 regarding deduction 36(1)(vii) is also common for\nboth the years. The brief facts for AY 2016-17 are that while\ncomputing the taxable income, the Appellant bank had claimed a\ndeduction of Rs. 303,86,90,303/- u/s 36(1)(vii), in respect of non-rural\ndebts written

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

disallowance u/s. 14A\nr.w. Rule 8D.\n13. Ground No.3 regarding deduction 36(1)(vii) is also common for\nboth the years. The brief facts for AY 2016-17 are that while\ncomputing the taxable income, the Appellant bank had claimed a\ndeduction of Rs. 303,86,90,303/- u/s 36(1)(vii), in respect of non-rural\ndebts written

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

disallowance u/s. 14A\nr.w. Rule 8D.\n13. Ground No.3 regarding deduction 36(1)(vii) is also common for\nboth the years. The brief facts for AY 2016-17 are that while\ncomputing the taxable income, the Appellant bank had claimed a\ndeduction of Rs. 303,86,90,303/- u/s 36(1)(vii), in respect of non-rural\ndebts written

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

disallowance of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The facts are that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.14.96 crores as bad debts written off in the computation of income u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It was noticed from the P&L account that nowhere the bad debt was debited

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

disallowance of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The facts are that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.14.96 crores as bad debts written off in the computation of income u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It was noticed from the P&L account that nowhere the bad debt was debited

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

disallowed under section 36(1)(iii). Section 40 is not a standalone section, it has to be read with section