THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANARA BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/416/2012HC KarnatakaKAHC01052319201209 September 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal had already been answered by a previous judgment of the same court. This previous judgment was against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that held Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the assessee, a banking company. The High Court admitted the appeal to consider a substantial question of law regarding this decision.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act were applicable to a banking company, and if the ITAT's finding to the contrary was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

I.T.A. NO.416 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

LTU, JSS TOWERS

BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE.

2.

THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

LTU, JSS TOWERS

BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND:

M/S. CANARA BANK BSCA SECTION HEAD OFFICE 112 JC ROAD, BANGALORE-560002. ... 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 18-07-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.305/BANG/2011, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING TO:

I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.305/BANG/2011 DATED 18/7/2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. 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 which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2013 to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee being a banking company without taking into consideration the provisions of section 115JB

r/w Explanation (3) to section 115JB of the Act and recorded a perverse finding?”.

2.

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal has been answered by this Court vide judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed in ITA No.18/2014 and connected matters, against the revenue. The aforesaid statement is not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.

3.

In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the judgment passed in ITA No.18/2014, the substantial question of law framed by a Bench of this Court in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE RV

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →