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

viia) in respect of rural branches, the latest/provisional census available should be considered. Accordingly this issue is remitted back to the AO. The assessee is directed to ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 38 of 46 provide the latest/provisional census which was available for the respective assessment year. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” 29. Respectfully following the above judgment

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

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 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

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

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 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

disallowed a sum of Rs.1387,81,80,315/- out of total claim of Rs.1695,59,52,309/-. The assessee bank contended before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no requirement in Section 36(1)(viia) that the provision should be in relation to rural advances. Further, it was contended that the reliance placed by the learned Assessing Officer

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UPPUNDA

section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same. It is not a business income\ntaxable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UUPI vs. KAMBADAKONE RYTARA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LTD, UDUPI

section\n80P(2)(d) has not been amended to include co-operative\nbanks explicitly.\n6.\nThe CIT(A) erred in non appreciating/neglecting the fact that\nthe character or nature of interest income received on the\ninvestment or deposits from a scheduled bank or co-\noperative banks is the same. It is not a business income\ntaxable

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

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

viia) of Rs.732,27,14,733 and made addition. The AO also disallowed excess depreciation on ATMs of Rs.3,11,060,880. The AO further noted from the return filed u/s. 148 and the original return u/s. 139(1) that the assessee had not computed book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act under the MAT ITA Nos.388 & 389/Bang/2023 Page

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

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

viia) of Rs.732,27,14,733 and made addition. The AO also disallowed excess depreciation on ATMs of Rs.3,11,060,880. The AO further noted from the return filed u/s. 148 and the original return u/s. 139(1) that the assessee had not computed book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act under the MAT ITA Nos.388 & 389/Bang/2023 Page

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

56,317/-. The claim of assessee u/s. 36(1)(vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is hereby disallowed (901,62,96,579 – 474,24,85,753). Total disallowance : Rs.427

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

56,317/-. The claim of assessee u/s. 36(1)(vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is hereby disallowed (901,62,96,579 – 474,24,85,753). Total disallowance : Rs.427

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

56,317/-. The claim of assessee u/s. 36(1)(vii) for the current year after write off pertaining to rural branches is at Rs.413,94,00,446/-. Since the available provision exceeds the claim, the entire claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is hereby disallowed (901,62,96,579 – 474,24,85,753). Total disallowance : Rs.427

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

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

M/S. AMPAR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 are allowed while the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was quashed and necessary relief to the assessee was directed. While dealing with the issue, the Hon’ble Bench has been pleased to observe as follows: 4. The deduction under Section 80P is not available for Co-operative banks from A.Y. 2007-08. Section 80P was amended by the Finance