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

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

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

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

disallowed the entire deduction claimed of bad debts of non-rural branches amounting to Rs. 303,86,90,303/- on two grounds:- (i) The amount was not actually written off in the loan account of the debtors. (ii) The entire write off (both rural and non rural debts) should be adjusted against the credit balance in the provision

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

disallowed the entire deduction claimed of bad debts of non-rural branches amounting to Rs. 303,86,90,303/- on two grounds:- (i) The amount was not actually written off in the loan account of the debtors. (ii) The entire write off (both rural and non rural debts) should be adjusted against the credit balance in the provision

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 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 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 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

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.

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. 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

disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee bank has not debited the amount to the P&L account and the non-rural debts written off were not adjusted with provisions allowed a/c. u/s.36(1)(viia) in view of the first provisio to section 36(1)(vii) r.e.s. 36(2)(v) 13.2. Aggrieved by the order

M/S CORPORATION BANK ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

via) of the Act. However, the Ld CIT(A) expressed the view that the PBDD allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act is applicable to both Rural and non-Rural debts. Accordingly, he held that the entire amount of bad debts written off (both rural and non- rural) should be first adjusted against the provision allowed u/s 36(1

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

via) of the Act. However, the Ld CIT(A) expressed the view that the PBDD allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act is applicable to both Rural and non-Rural debts. Accordingly, he held that the entire amount of bad debts written off (both rural and non-rural) should be first adjusted against the provision allowed u/s 36(1

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

via) in a sum of Rs. 1,10,94,360. The assessing officer did not allow the claim for deduction of debts amounting to Rs. 38,28,836 actually written off. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim and upheld the order of Assessing Officer and the ITAT held that deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was allowable independently

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

via) in a sum of Rs. 1,10,94,360. The assessing officer did not allow the claim for deduction of debts amounting to Rs. 38,28,836 actually written off. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim and upheld the order of Assessing Officer and the ITAT held that deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was allowable independently

VIJAYA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL..C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

disallowed u/s 36(1)(viia) by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that no requisite provision was created in the books of account. The deduction was limited to the extent of actual amount of provision created in the books of account. It is not dispute that the assessee-bank is eligible for deduction u/s 36

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, Mg Road, Bangalre-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaacv 4791 J & M/S. Vijaya Bank, Ho, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri P.Chandrashekar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca & Smt.Lalitha Ramaswamy, Ca Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2016 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Bank As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ltu, Bangalore, Dated 28/11/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. Ita Nos.318 & 331/Bang/2014 Page 2 Of 25 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Nationalized Bank Engaged In The Business Of Banking. It Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 29/9/2009 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.540,24,85,305/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, Assessment Was Completed By The Addl. Cit (Ltu), Bangalore, U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] Vide Order Dated 30/08/2011 At A Total Income Of Rs.1205,99,81,409/-. While Doing So, The Ao Made The Following Disallowances:

disallowed u/s 36(1)(viia) by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that no requisite provision was created in the books of account. The deduction was limited to the extent of actual amount of provision created in the books of account. It is not dispute that the assessee-bank is eligible for deduction u/s 36

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

36(1)(iii); and in the case of a firm, further that the amount does not exceed the limit fixed by section 40(b)(iv). 4.6 The audited accounts filed by assessee revealed that there were sufficient funds with assessee as on 31/03/2013. The Page 10 of 25 argument that assessee had sufficient own funds cannot be the only reason

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

36(1)(va): Rs. 16,61,049 2. Disallowed deduction of Education cess: Rs.1,22,79,936 ii. The Appellant Assessee filed an application u/s. 270AA(2) of the Act, for granting of immunity on 06.10.2022 in Form no.-68. An opportunity of being heard was accorded to the assessee on 19.10.2022 to furnish reply. The appellant assessee filed

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

via an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, and they are given an opportunity to respond before any demand is raised. 25.2 However, an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. It is merely a preliminary check of the return filed by the taxpayer and is done through an automated process. 25.3 In contrast, the Scrutiny

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

disallowed the entire deduction claimed of bad debts of non-rural branches amounting to Rs. 303,86,90,303/- on two grounds:- (i) The amount was not actually written off in the loan account of the debtors. (ii) The entire write off (both rural and non rural debts) should be adjusted against the credit balance in the provision

M/S. CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

disallowance u/s 14A cannot be added to book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income u/s ITA Nos.479 & 530/09, ……693 & 684/B/12 Page 6 of 42 115JB of the Act following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (255 ITR 273). 6. Being aggrieved by that part of the order