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

disallowed the claim made u/s 36(1)(vii) on identical reasons. However, the Tribunal has reversed the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) by following the decision rendered by Hyderabad bench of Tribunal in the case of State Bank of ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 9 of 46 Hyderabad vs. DCIT (ITA No.450/Hyd/2015, ITA No.498 and 499/Hyd/2015 dated August

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

9 of 32 Thus, considered in light of principle laid down as referred to above, when the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing

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

9. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The facts

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

9. Ground No. 2 relates to disallowance of bad debts written off under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The facts

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

9 TMI 1289 (Mum. Trib_ Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017) 11 TMI 1589 (Del Trib.) 12. It was submitted that the assessee had claimed only a sum of Rs.413,94,00, 446 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) whereas the AO has disallowed an amount of rs.462,79,56,763, the excess of Rs.48

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

9 TMI 1289 (Mum. Trib_ Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017) 11 TMI 1589 (Del Trib.) 12. It was submitted that the assessee had claimed only a sum of Rs.413,94,00, 446 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) whereas the AO has disallowed an amount of rs.462,79,56,763, the excess of Rs.48

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

9 TMI 1289 (Mum. Trib_ Oriental Bank of Commerce (2017) 11 TMI 1589 (Del Trib.) 12. It was submitted that the assessee had claimed only a sum of Rs.413,94,00, 446 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) whereas the AO has disallowed an amount of rs.462,79,56,763, the excess of Rs.48

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

9. Ground of appeal no. 8 is related to disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 1,73,77,820/- made in order to comply with the guidelines on 'Rural Self Employment Training Institutes' (RSETIs) issued by Government of India. Ministry of Rural Development, the Appellant bank has contributed to 'Centenary Rural Development Trust' established under the above said guidelines and claimed

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

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

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

vii)\nbeing the bad debts written off by the non-rural branches of the\nAppellant bank.\n4. Without prejudice to ground no. 3, the learned Assessing Officer\nbe directed not to tax the recovery from written off accounts if the\nground no. 3 is not allowed.\n5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in\nupholding the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands\ndismissed and the cross objections being C

9(1)(vii) providing\nsignificant professional skills and the subsidiaries are not\nmere marketing or commission agents.\nIn this regard, the Respondent submits as follows:\na. The CIT(A) has held that sales commission is not\ntaxable both under the Income Tax Act and DTAA. The\nRevenue has not taken ground that the CIT(A)'s decision of\nnon-taxability

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

9 of 23 (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

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

9 of 23 (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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 9(1)(vii) or under Article 12 of DTAA. It is ordered accordingly.” As a corollary to the above order, since the services rendered to the appellant by Manthan Systems Inc. have been held to not fall within the ambit of FTS or under Page 14 ITA Nos. 943 to 946/Bang/2023 & C.O. Nos. 14 to 17/Bang/2023 Article

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 9(1)(vii) or under Article 12 of DTAA. It is ordered accordingly.” As a corollary to the above order, since the services rendered to the appellant by Manthan Systems Inc. have been held to not fall within the ambit of FTS or under Page 14 ITA Nos. 943 to 946/Bang/2023 & C.O. Nos. 14 to 17/Bang/2023 Article

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 9(1)(vii) or under Article 12 of DTAA. It is ordered accordingly.” As a corollary to the above order, since the services rendered to the appellant by Manthan Systems Inc. have been held to not fall within the ambit of FTS or under Page 14 ITA Nos. 943 to 946/Bang/2023 & C.O. Nos. 14 to 17/Bang/2023 Article

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

9(1)(vii) of the\nIncome-tax Act.\n\n4. The said payments are also taxable as per the provisions of\nrelevant DTAA.\n\n5. The payment also satisfies the 'make available' clause of the\nDTAA provisions.\n\n46. Hence, the reimbursements of salary costs paid by AMAT India to\nseconder towards seconded employees are chargeable to tax both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Act for non-deduction of\ntax under section 195 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.\"\n\n3.2 held that:\nJurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT\n\n\"V. Conclusion:-\n\n33. In the present case, the stand taken on the material available

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a) (i) of the Act for non-deduction of\ntax under section 195 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.\"\n3.2 held that:\nJurisdictional Karnataka High Court in the case of Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT\n\"V. Conclusion:-\n33. In the present case, the stand taken on the material available is on the construction