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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/139/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01024288201622 January 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court followed its previous judgment in a similar case. It held that the ITAT was correct in its decision regarding the applicability of MAT provisions to the assessee-bank.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that allowed the assessee-bank's appeal. The core issue was the applicability of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act to the assessee-bank.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB are applicable to banks, considering their specific accounting requirements under the Companies Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

ITA No.139/2016

BETWEEN:

1.

The Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU JSS Tower’s BSK III Stage, Bangalore 560 085

2.

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU JSS Tower’s BSK III Stage, Bangalore 560 085 ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K.V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE )

AND: M/s Vijaya Bank, Ho: Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G.Road, Bangalore,- 560 001 PAN: AAACV 4791J …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. T SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

2 11.9.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.760/BANG/2011,FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri. K.V. Aravind , learned counsel for the revenue.

Sri T Suryanarayana, learned Counsel for the respondent.

This appeal, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2018 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ITAT was right in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the provisions of on the ground that the provisions of minimum alternate tax under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the assessee-Bank because the assessee was not required to prepare its profit and loss accounts in

3 accordance with the provisions of Part-II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956?”

2.

It is a common ground that the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered by us vide judgment dated 16.01.2020 passed in ITA No.18/2014. x 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of by answering the substantial question framed in this appeal in terms of the judgment dated 16.1.2020 passed in ITA No.18/2014.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Psg*

More judgments on Section 115JB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →