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

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

disallowances made in the hands of Corporation Bank. Accordingly he directed the AO to delete the disallowance of payments made to NFS and Cash Tree. 15. In respect of payment of Rs.96.87 lakhs made to Visa International, the ld CIT(A) restored the issue to the file of the AO with the direction to verify the details of Tax deduction

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

vii)(a) being the amount eligible as calculated under the section. The assessee had calculated the deduction based on the Aggregate Average Rural Advances (AAA) computed as per Rule 6ABA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. During the assessment proceedings the learned Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank

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

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

56,60,417\n\n03\nDeduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.103,71,52,885\n\n04\nDeduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.191,95,54,195\n\n05\nDisallowance made being excess claim of deduction u/s\n36(1)(viia)\nRs. 88,24,01,309\n\n37. The CIT(A) after considering the detailed submissions and following the judgment

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

56,88,806 Total 269379,91,73,064 260371,10,91,735 264875,51,32,401 19. From the above table, the AO observed that the assessee has not transferred any amount to the special reserve as mentioned in section 36(1)(viii) of the Act . Further the assessee was questioned regarding transfer to special reserve as the section mandates

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

56,88,806 Total 269379,91,73,064 260371,10,91,735 264875,51,32,401 19. From the above table, the AO observed that the assessee has not transferred any amount to the special reserve as mentioned in section 36(1)(viii) of the Act . Further the assessee was questioned regarding transfer to special reserve as the section mandates

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

56,60,417\n03\nDeduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.103,71,52,885\n04\nDeduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.191,95,54,195\n05\nDisallowance made being excess claim of deduction u/s\n36(1)(viia)\nRs. 88,24,01,309\n37. The CIT(A) after considering the detailed submissions and\nfollowing the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional

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

vii) whereas the AO has disallowed an amount of rs.462,79,56,763, the excess of Rs.48,85,56,317 is the bad debts written off relating to rural branches which is debited to the provisions account and not claimed as deduction. Therefore the disallowance to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317 is required to be deleted

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

vii) whereas the AO has disallowed an amount of rs.462,79,56,763, the excess of Rs.48,85,56,317 is the bad debts written off relating to rural branches which is debited to the provisions account and not claimed as deduction. Therefore the disallowance to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317 is required to be deleted

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

vii) whereas the AO has disallowed an amount of rs.462,79,56,763, the excess of Rs.48,85,56,317 is the bad debts written off relating to rural branches which is debited to the provisions account and not claimed as deduction. Therefore the disallowance to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317 is required to be deleted

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

56,60,417\n03\nDeduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.103,71,52,885\n04\nDeduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.191,95,54,195\n05\nDisallowance made being excess claim of deduction u/s\n36(1)(viia)\nRs. 88,24,01,309\n37.\nThe CIT(A) after considering the detailed submissions and\nfollowing the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional

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

56,60,417\n03\nDeduction allowable u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.103,71,52,885\n04\nDeduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia)\nRs.191,95,54,195\n05\nDisallowance made being excess claim of deduction u/s\n36(1)(viia)\nRs. 88,24,01,309\n37. The CIT(A) after considering the detailed submissions and\nfollowing the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional

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

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 profit

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

disallowed. (3) The bad debt write off claimed in computation of income was prudential write off and it is a balance sheet adjustment and not profit and loss adjustment that has lead to double deduction.” 39. As far as additional ground No.1 is concerned, the same was not the case made out by the AO. In the order of assessment

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

disallowed. (3) The bad debt write off claimed in computation of income was prudential write off and it is a balance sheet adjustment and not profit and loss adjustment that has lead to double deduction.” 39. As far as additional ground No.1 is concerned, the same was not the case made out by the AO. In the order of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

56. Thus, we hold that Section 11 of the Acquisition Act which deals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for the purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2 to Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a company for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be ITA No.424/Mum/2020

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

56,03,567 Excise Duty 2,11,18,716 0 2,11,18,716 Total 3,39,20,499 1,28,01,784 4,67,22,283 15.1. The AO during the course of assessment noticed an observation made in the Tax Audit Report saying that the assessee had not followed the provisions of section 145A of the Act with

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

disallows certain expenditures incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other incomes which is includable in the total income for the purposes of chargeability to the Lax. It i4 equally well settled that expenditure is a pay out. In order to attract applicability of section 14,4 of the Act, there

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

disallows certain expenditures incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other incomes which is includable in the total income for the purposes of chargeability to the Lax. It i4 equally well settled that expenditure is a pay out. In order to attract applicability of section 14,4 of the Act, there

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

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

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

vii) which requires adjustment of bad debts against provision allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) would apply to non-rural advances also. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.192.02 crores. 6. The next issue urged by the assessee relates to disallowance of payments made to VISA International u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which was confirmed