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

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

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

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

section 36(1)(vii) applies only to provision made for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural advances.” Because of the interpretation so given by Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed earlier, there arose a necessity for the Parliament to clarify that the PBDD allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) shall apply to all types of advances including advances made

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

section 36(1)(vii) applies only to provision made for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural advances.” Because of the interpretation so given by Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed earlier, there arose a necessity for the Parliament to clarify that the PBDD allowed u/s 36(1)(viia) shall apply to all types of advances including advances made

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. 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

viia) Party allowed 936,90,65,332 2. Disallowance u/s 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

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted the Computation of eligible deduction U/s 36(1)(viia) in Anx.2A enclosed to computation of business income, the opening balance of available brought forward provision is at Rs.2666,68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted the Computation of eligible deduction U/s 36(1)(viia) in Anx.2A enclosed to computation of business income, the opening balance of available brought forward provision is at Rs.2666,68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56

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

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted the Computation of eligible deduction U/s 36(1)(viia) in Anx.2A enclosed to computation of business income, the opening balance of available brought forward provision is at Rs.2666,68,65,271/- and for the current year the claim is allowed to the extent of Rs.48,85,56

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

viia) in section 2 (24) so as to provide that the profits and grains of any business of banking (including credit facilities) carried on by a cooperative society with its members shall be included in the definition of 'income'. This amendment takes effect from 1st April, 2007 and apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-08 and subsequent

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

viia) in section 2 (24) so as to provide that the profits and grains of any business of banking (including credit facilities) carried on by a cooperative society with its members shall be included in the definition of 'income'. This amendment takes effect from 1st April, 2007 and apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-08 and subsequent

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

68,82,781 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 10% of the Bad & Doubtful Debts in the AY 2004-05. ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 17 of 49 18. The AO was of the view that just as how the Assessee has adjusted the PBDD in respect of rural advances, it ought to have adjusted PBDD in respect

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

68,82,781 deduction is claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) @ 10% of the Bad & Doubtful Debts in the AY 2004-05. ITA Nos. 578 & 653/Bang/2012 Page 17 of 49 18. The AO was of the view that just as how the Assessee has adjusted the PBDD in respect of rural advances, it ought to have adjusted PBDD in respect

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

68,00,000 ii) Disallowance of claim of provision for bad Rs.415,26,46,585 and doubtful debts u/s.36(1)(viia) iii) Disallowance of Depreciation on AFS & Rs.279,12,50,807 HFT category of investments. iv) Disallowance of Depreciation on HTM Rs.507,15,29,634 category of investments. v) Appreciation on investments not offered Rs.366

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

68,999/- and the assessee has also suo moto made disallowance of Rs.1,510/-. The AO further observed that the assessee has claimed travelling and conveyance expenses in the profit and loss account amounting to Rs.16,96,408/- for foreign travelling and allowances. The assessee was asked to file details of the expenditure incurred and purpose for the visit outside

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

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

68,772 advance Expenditure/claims disallowed: 2 Provision for bad debts u/s 36(1)(viia) 0 3 Depreciation on Investments 1913,01,00,000 4 Disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a0(ia) – 28,53,74,990 previous year claim 5 Unrealised gains on Revaluation of Forex 96,64,72,035 Forward contracts 6 Depreciation on Lelased Assets (Rajinder

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

56,03,567 Excise Duty 2,11,18,716 0 2,11,18,716 Total 3,39,20,499 1,28,01,784 4,67,22,283 15.1. The AO during the course of assessment noticed an observation made in the Tax Audit Report saying that the assessee had not followed the provisions of section 145A

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