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

36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 13.04.2016 was issued and served upon the assessee. Notices under Section 142(1) were also issued on various dates along with questionnaires calling for various details to verify

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

section of the society. The chances of recovery by the national bank being weaker by 10 per cent to the aggregate average, advances made in those rural branches is given deduction towards bad and doubtful debts. The Legislature has defined what is 'rural branch', as it is clear from the explanation. They have fixed the population of not more

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

section of the society. The chances of recovery by the national bank being weaker by 10 per cent to the aggregate average, advances made in those rural branches is given deduction towards bad and doubtful debts. The Legislature has defined what is 'rural branch', as it is clear from the explanation. They have fixed the population of not more

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

68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317/-. 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

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

68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317/-. 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

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

68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56,317/-. 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

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

36(1)(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

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 14,82,695/- . The brief facts of the case are that on the perusal of the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer noted the assessee had made advances to its sister concern and others totaling Rs. 2,31,23,236/- . The learned AR for the assessee was asked to furnish the details

INTERGARDEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Intergarden (India) Private Limited, The Deputy No. 447, Sri Sai Heights, Commissioner Of 17Th Cross, 17Th Main, Vs. Income Tax, 4Th Sector, Hsr Layout, Circle 11 (3), Bangalore, Bangalore. Karnataka – 560 102. Pan: Aaaci7692H Appellant Respondent

section 36(2) of IT Act are complied with. Thereafter, he submitted that similar is the case in respect of other seven parties whose copies of ledger accounts are available on pages 41 to 68

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

section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act in the absence of any appeal or any cross- objection filed by it against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Court after considering several judicial pronouncements on the subject held as follows: “We are therefore of the view that it is permissible on the part

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

section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act in the absence of any appeal or any cross- objection filed by it against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Court after considering several judicial pronouncements on the subject held as follows: “We are therefore of the view that it is permissible on the part

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

68,82,138/-. The ld. AO has raised a demand of Rs.1086,07,00,024/- after charging interest u/s 234B of the Act as per the normal provisions of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Section 68 cannot be applied in the present year. The\nRevenue cannot tax earlier-year credits in a later year.\n(f)\nThe Bombay High Court Ivan Singh v. ACIT (272\nTaxman 36

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Section 68 cannot be applied in the present year. The\nRevenue cannot tax earlier-year credits in a later year.\n(f)\nThe Bombay High Court Ivan Singh v. ACIT (272\nTaxman 36

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Section 68 cannot be applied in the present year. The\nRevenue cannot tax earlier-year credits in a later year.\n(f) The Bombay High Court Ivan Singh v. ACIT (272\nTaxman 36

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

Section 36 & 72(a) of the KVAT Act dated 11.06.2018. When the authority under the KVAT Act accepts the tax Invoices without the address of the buyers, the Assessing Officer cannot dispute the same. It is not open for the Income Tax authorities to invoke the powers under other statutes. 6.7 The appellant has submitted that the assesse

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

36(1)(vii), as proviso to the said section would not apply to non-rural advances. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A).” 5.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. Following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

36 of 49 be examined u/s.68 and 69, 69A or 69C prima facie these sections are not applicable in the case of assessee for the following reasons. Section Explanation for non applicability of Section Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

36 of 49 be examined u/s.68 and 69, 69A or 69C prima facie these sections are not applicable in the case of assessee for the following reasons. Section Explanation for non applicability of Section Unexplained The assessee has merely transferred his own 68