TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal modifies tax order, directs independent examination of clause, emphasizes accurate assessment</h1> <h3>The Karnataka Bank Limited Versus Principal CIT Mangaluru</h3> The Karnataka Bank Limited Versus Principal CIT Mangaluru - TMI Issues:Challenge to revision order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2014-15.Analysis:1. The appeal challenges the revision order by Ld Pr. CIT, Mangaluru u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2014-15. The issue arose when the AO made an addition u/s 14A but omitted the same while computing book profit u/s 115JB. Ld Pr. CIT considered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, initiating revision proceedings. The Ld A.R argued the debatable applicability of sec.14A to a banking company, citing relevant judgments. The Ld D.R supported Ld Pr. CIT's order, claiming the AO's failure to apply the law correctly rendered the assessment order erroneous.2. The Tribunal referred to the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT case, stating that the provision of sec. 263 is invoked only when an order is erroneous, which includes incorrect assumptions of fact or law. The order must be prejudicial to revenue, not merely resulting in a loss of tax. The assessing officer's acceptance of the book profit without considering clause (f) of Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to omitted provisions.3. The Ld Pr. CIT's view to adopt the disallowance u/s 14A for addition to Net profit under clause (f) to Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB was contrary to the Special bench's decision in Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. The Tribunal held that the disallowance under sec. 14A for normal income provisions cannot be used for computing book profit. The issue primarily focused on the proper computation of book profit u/s 115JB, with the AO's failure to consider clause (f) making the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.4. The Tribunal modified Ld Pr. CIT's order, directing the AO to independently examine clause (f) to Explanation 1 to sec. 115JB without considering sec. 14A. The decision was made after considering the conflicting views and ensuring the AO applies the law correctly. The appeal was partly allowed, emphasizing the importance of proper application of tax provisions for accurate assessment.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties, the relevant legal principles, and the Tribunal's final decision.
TaxTMI 