ACIT 2 2 1, MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G’ BENCH
MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT
MEMBER
&
400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACS8577K
(Appellant)
..
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri. Ninad Patade
Revenue by Shri. Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT
DR
Date of Hearing
07/01/2025
Date of Pronouncement
13/01/2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This revenue appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT (A) 5, Mumbai–10033/2018–19 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- State Bank of India

2
Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2006-07, wherein learned CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee’s first appeal.
2. Briefly stating, learned assessing officer, under rectification order dated 31.03.2018 passed u/s. 154 r/w 251 of the Act, made the computation of assessee’s income in accordance with the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Learned
CIT(A), in first appeal, has held that the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee banking company as the same is governed by Banking Regulations Act,
1949, prior to 01.04.2012. Aggrieved, revenue is under appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that the assessee banking company is not exempt from the MAT Provisions.
3. Purused records. Heard learned DR for the appellant revenue and learned representative for the respondent assessee.
4. At the very outset, learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the provisions u/s. 115JB of the Act cannot be made applicable to the assessee banking company. Learned
AR has further submitted that the matter is covered by the order dated 23.12.2016 passed by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 3789/MUM/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 and three ors. The relevant paras 8 and 8.1 are reproduced as under:
“8. We have heard the rival submissions, carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We noted that the said issue is duly covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Mumbai 'E' Bench in the case of SBI
Commercial & International Bank Ltd. vs. I.T.O. in I.T.A.No.3479/Mum/2011 in which vide order dated 18/01/2013 this Tribunal held as under:
State Bank of India

3
"16. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material on record. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset, has relied on the decision of Mumbai G-Bench of ITAT in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL VS. Joint Director of Income-tax (ITA
No.3390/Mum/2009 dated 30th September, 2010) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 115 JB could only come into play when the assessee was required to prepare its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of part II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act and starting point of computation of minimum alternate tax (MAT) u/s. 115JB is the result shown by such profit and loss account. It was held that in the case of baking companies, the provisions of Schedule VI to the companies Act, however, are not applicable in view of exemption set out under proviso to section 211(2) of the Companies Act and since the final accounts of the banking companies are required to be prepared in accordance with the provision of the Banking
Regulation Act, the provisions of section 115JB cannot be applied to the case of a banking company. As the learned DR has not been able to cite any judicial pronouncement which is in favour of the Revenue on this issue, we respectfully follow the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bank PCL (supra) and hold that the provisions of section 115 JB not being applicable in the case of the assessee being a banking company, the question of computation of book profit under the said provisions or making any addition for this purpose does not arise at all. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by Id CIT(Appeals) on account of provision for doubtful debts while computing the book profit u/s 115JB, therefore, is deleted."
8.1 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the provision of section 115JB cannot be made applicable to the case of the assessee.
Thus, ground No. 2 stands allowed. ”

4
decided against the appellant revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee.
6. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 13.01.2025. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 13/01/2025
Anandi Nambi, Steno
Copy of the Order forwarded to:

BY ORDER,

(Asstt.