Krung Thai Bank PCL v. JCIT

133 TTJ 435Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#12158 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing Krung Thai Bank PCL v. JCIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

ITA 114/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(2)Section 80I

…DCIT: ITA Nos. 1703/1710 and 1716 of 2009 (Ker) = 2010-TIOL-827-HC- KERALA -IT - Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. JCIT: 82 ITD 422 (Mum.) = 2003-TIOL-87-ITAT-MUM - Reliance Energy Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 218/Mum/2005 (Mum.) - Krung Thai Bank PCL v. JDIT: 133 TTJ 435 (Mum.) 22.18 Accordingly, the provisions of section 115JB of the Act were, during the relevant year, not applicable to the appellant, contended the Learned AR. 22.19 The Learned AR submitted that the aforesaid contention of the appellant, is fortified by substantive amendments in section 115JB of the Act made by the Finance Act, 2012, with effect…

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 211Section 234Section 80I

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL; BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 910/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8581/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Deputy Commissioner Of Central Bank Of India Income Tax 2(1) Central Office बनाम/ Central Accounts Deptt. Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Chandermukhi, 4Th Floor Room No. 575, 5Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-2498-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 153/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.8581/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Central Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office Income Tax 2(1) बनाम/ Central Accounts Deptt. Aaykar Bhavan Chandermukhi, 4Th Floor Room No. 575, 5Th Floor Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-2498-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

…ed to in sub- section (1) of Section 115JA must prepare a profit & Loss Account in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and Part III of the Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. The ITAT Mumbai benches in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL Vs. JCIT [2010 133 TTJ 435] have held that the provisions contained in Section 115JB, which in other words is also known as Minimum Alternative Tax [MAT] provisions, are not applicable to banking companies since they are not required to prepare a Profit & Loss Account in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and Part III of the Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956.…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2028/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2002-03 Bank Of India, Dcit-2(1), 8Th Floor, Star House, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Taxation Department, Mumbai-40020 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaacb0472C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri C. Naresh राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Suman Kumar-Dr

Section 115J

…o to sec 211(2) of the companies Act, 1956 applies. The Assessee being a company to which proviso to sec 211(2) of the Companies Act 1956 applies, will not be liable to be taxed under sec 115JB. 14. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Krung Thai Bank Vs. JCIT (133 TTJ 435), to which one of us is a party has held that provisions of sec 115JB cannot be applied to the banking company.” 9.3 Similarly, in the case of Reliance Energy (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has held in paras 28 & 29 as under: “28 As discussed above when it is not possible to prepare the accounts under the Companies Act for the pur…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3001/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Years: 2002-03 Bank Of India, Dcit-2(1), 8Th Floor, Star House, Taxation Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Department, Bandra Kurla M.K. Road, Vs. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacb0472C

Section 115JSection 154Section 211

ABU-DHABI COMMERICAL BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6852/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6852/Mum./2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007–08) Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. 75B, Rehmat Manzil …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Veer Nariman Road Appellant Mumbai 400 020 Pan – Aaaca4216B V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / (International Taxation), Circle–1(1) 117, Scindia House, Ballard Pier Respondent Mumbai 400 038 ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W Ms. Chandani Shah रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 28.09.2016 Date Of Order – 21.10.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain

Section 1Section 10(15)(iv)Section 14ASection 44C

…115JB will not be applicable to a banking company as they are governed under the Banking Regulation Act and not Companies Act. In this context, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision fo the Tribunal in case of Krung Thai Bank PCL v/s JCIT, 133 TTJ 435, UCO Bank v/s DCIT, 156 ITD 146. 17. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. 18. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Undisputedly, the assessee is a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation…

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…owing decisions:- - Kerala State Electricity Board v. DCIT: ITA Nos. 1703/1710 and 1716 of 2009 (Ker) - Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. JCIT: 82 ITD 422 (Mum.) - Reliance Energy Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 218/Mum/2005 (Mum.) - Krung Thai Bank PCL v. JDIT: 133 TTJ 435 (Mum.) 22.18 Accordingly, the provisions of section 115JB of the Act were, during the relevant year, not applicable to the appellant, contended the Learned AR. 22.19 The Learned AR submitted that the aforesaid contention of the appellant, is fortified by substantive amendments in section 115JB of the Act made by the Finance Act, 2012, with ef…

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

ITA 898/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…icable to Banking Company for A.Y. 2007- 08. 3.2 The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have placed reliance on the decisions of the Hyderabad ITAT in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad ( ITA No.779 % 578 of 2010) and Mumbai ITAT in the case of Krung Tahai Bank (133 TTJ 435). 4. Ground 5 – Provision of expenses amounting to Rs.75,00,281. 4.1 Without prejudice to the Ground 4, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred on facts and in confirming the disallowance made by the learned A.O. under Section 115JB of the Act with respect to provision for expenses of Rs.75,00,281.” 5. Ground No.1 : Expenditure on purchase of softwar…