9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Sarangan, Sr. Counsel Respondent by : Shri S.K.Ambastha, CIT. ORDER Per N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VP: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee-M/s.Canara Bank, Bangalore, for the assessment year 2005-06 against the 263 order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (LTU), Bangalore. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is banking company and for the assessment year 2005-06 it filed its return of income declaring nil income under the normal provisions of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] and ₹ 900,65,59,500/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed by determining the total income at ₹ 1158,58,5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure are not added back while arriving at book profits. The provisions for bad doubtful/assets of ₹ 806,89,35,833/- and provision for depreciation on investments ₹ 458,38,51,244/- were not added to the net profit for computing income u/s 115JB. The same has to be added back. 3. The assessee appeared before the CIT and contended that the provisions of 115JB were not applicable to the assessee since the assessee is a banking company and is not required to prepare profit and loss account and balance-sheet as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act. The assessee also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL vs. Joint Director of Income-tax in ITA No.3390/Mum/09 dated 30-9- 2010. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction u/s 263 for setting aside the assessment order dated 17-3-2010 for the relevant assessment year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax erred in invoking the provisions of section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the appellant bank. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the banks are obliged to prepare the accounts in terms of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and not under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore the provisions of section 115JB which are applicable only to the Companies are not applicable to the appellant bank. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. He has drawn our attention to the following decisions for the proposition that sec.115JB is not applicable to banking company. i) ITA No.3390/Mum/09 dt.30-9-2010 in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL vs. Joint Director of Income-tax (ITAT)(Mumbai) ii) ITA Nos.4702 to 4706/Mum/2010 dt.30-6-2011 in the case of Union Bank of India vs. ACIT, LTU (ITAT)(Mumbai) iii) ITA No.469/Mds/2010 dt. 3-8-2011 in the case of Indian Bank vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT)(Chennai) iv) ITA Nos.4155 to 4161 of 2011 dt.27-3-2012 in the case of Union Bank of India (ITAT) (Mumbai) He also relied on the following decisions for attacking the jurisdiction u/s 263: i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000)(243 ITR 83)(SC) ii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
