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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an\norder enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already\nmade or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under\nSection 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the\n1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for\nthe purposes of computing

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an\norder enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already\nmade or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under\nSection 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the\n1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for\nthe purposes of computing

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an\norder enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already\nmade or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under\nSection 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the\n1st day of April 2001.\n9.\nFrom perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for\nthe purposes of computing

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

56 of the Banking Regulations Act 1949, which is an obligation of the Act to cooperative banks and cooperative society subject to the modifications. He also referred to NABARD Act 1981 under which, the definition of sec. 2(d) of Central Cooperative Bank has been defined and he also referred to sec. 2(p) which is definition of regional rural

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

56 of the Banking Regulations Act 1949, which is an obligation of the Act to cooperative banks and cooperative society subject to the modifications. He also referred to NABARD Act 1981 under which, the definition of sec. 2(d) of Central Cooperative Bank has been defined and he also referred to sec. 2(p) which is definition of regional rural

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for the Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are allowed and Appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunath

2. The reopening of the assessment u/s 148 is bad in law. 2.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax –Appeals erred in holding that there was a failure on the part of the appellant Bank to disclose the facts necessary for the assessment. The learned Commissioner of Income tax –Appeals erred in confirming that the addition is not based

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

viia) & 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The additional grounds sought to be raised in this regard read thus: “(1) Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of Rs.108.53 Cr is not in accordance with the provisions under the Act where bad debts written off was not debited into the profit & loss account. (2) The provision

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

viia) & 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The additional grounds sought to be raised in this regard read thus: “(1) Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii) of Rs.108.53 Cr is not in accordance with the provisions under the Act where bad debts written off was not debited into the profit & loss account. (2) The provision

VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

56,81,270. A revised return of income was filed on 30.3.2012 wherein the assessee's income was declared at Rs.343,23,86,017. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.7.2.2013 wherein the assessee's income was determined

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

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023 Page 9 of 31 assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section

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

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023 Page 9 of 31 assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section