https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446131 ITAT Bangalore remitted the case to CIT(A) for fresh consideration regarding MAT provisions applicability on corresponding new bank versus banking company. The tribunal found CIT(A) erred by not considering section 51 of BR Act which limits applicable provisions to corresponding new banks. The court clarified that section 36(1)(viia) deduction calculation must include both outstanding and fresh advances per Karnataka HC precedent in Canara Bank case. All related additions under section 115JB were also restored to CIT(A) for re-examination following the MAT applicability determination. en-us Tue, 26 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Nov 2023 13:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446131 ITAT Bangalore remitted the case to CIT(A) for fresh consideration regarding MAT provisions applicability on corresponding new bank versus banking company. The tribunal found CIT(A) erred by not considering section 51 of BR Act which limits applicable provisions to corresponding new banks. The court clarified that section 36(1)(viia) deduction calculation must include both outstanding and fresh advances per Karnataka HC precedent in Canara Bank case. All related additions under section 115JB were also restored to CIT(A) for re-examination following the MAT applicability determination. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446131