THE COMMISSIONER vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.141 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU, JSS TOWER'S, BSK III STAGE

BANGALORE-560085. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU, JSS TOWER'S, BSK III STAGE

BANGALORE-560085. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. VIJAYA BANK H.O.: CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPT. 41/2, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 PAN: AAACV 4791J. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11-09-2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.596/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO:

2 I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.596/BANG/2010 DATED 11-09-2015 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2017 to consider the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were

3 right in law in holding that Banking companies are not liable for Minimum Alternate Tax u/s. 115JB of the Act against the provisions of the Act? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were right in law in holding that the assessee bank is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, when the assessee has not debited any bad debts write off in the profit and loss account and only the provision for bad debts (prudential write off) has been claimed as deduction in the computation of income as bad debt write off? 3. When the matter was taken up today, the assessee submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have already been answered against the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 06.11.2020 passed by this Court in ITA No.140/2016. The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.

4 4. In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the judgment dated 06.11.2020 passed by a Bench of this Court in ITA No.140/2016, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV