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

vii) of the Act without adjusting the same against the PBDD a/c, since the said PBDD a/c relates to rural advances only.” 5. Respectfully following the above decision of the coordinate Bench, we allow this ground in above terms. 6. GROUND No. 03 is alternate ground of 02, since we have decided the ground No. 02 in above terms, therefore

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(1

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(1

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(1

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 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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

1)(vii) and 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

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.27.12.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.5897,92,23,130 in view of the following additions / disallowances :- i) Disallowance of bad debts written off Rs.1143,68,00,000 ii) Disallowance of claim of provision for bad Rs.415

M/S BOSCH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

vii) of the 1961 Act. We Page 11 of 67 cannot decide the matter on the basis of apprehension/desirability. It is always open to the Assessing Officer to call for details of individual debtor's account if the Assessing Officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the assessee has claimed deduction, twice over. In fact, that exercise has been undertaken

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 36(1)(vii) grants deduction for amount of bad debts or part thereof written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in the accounts subject to provisions of sec.36(2) of the Act. The case of the AO is that the assessee-bank had not written off bad debts in the books of account as it is only

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 36(1)(vii) grants deduction for amount of bad debts or part thereof written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in the accounts subject to provisions of sec.36(2) of the Act. The case of the AO is that the assessee-bank had not written off bad debts in the books of account as it is only

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 36(1)(vii) grants deduction for amount of bad debts or part thereof written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in the accounts subject to provisions of sec.36(2) of the Act. The case of the AO is that the assessee-bank had not written off bad debts in the books of account as it is only

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. ADDL. C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 36(1)(vii) grants deduction for amount of bad debts or part thereof written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in the accounts subject to provisions of sec.36(2) of the Act. The case of the AO is that the assessee-bank had not written off bad debts in the books of account as it is only

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 36(1)(vii) grants deduction for amount of bad debts or part thereof written off by the assessee as irrecoverable in the accounts subject to provisions of sec.36(2) of the Act. The case of the AO is that the assessee-bank had not written off bad debts in the books of account as it is only