2012 (11) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 Rs. 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 Rs. 1158,58,50,905/-. This order was subject matter of an order by the CIT(A) who had granted relief to the assessee by order dated 31-12-2009 and order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order was passed on 17-3-2010 determining 'nil' income under normal provisions and Rs. 931,30,21,688/- under the special provisions of the Act. It is this order that is the subject matter of revision u/s.263. The CIT, under 263 notice, proposed to make addition ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board vs. DCIT (329 ITR 91). Relying on the above decisions, it was pleaded that the provisions of sec.115JB are not applicable to the assessee-bank. However, the CIT did not accept the contention of the assessee for the reason that the assessee-company is governed by the Reserve Bank of India and hence is clearly a company for the purpose of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 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-tax erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to make additions on account of the provision made for bad & doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 806.89 crore and provision made for depreciation on investments Rs. 458.39 crore. 5. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the Commissioner be cancelled and the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent of computation of normal tax liability b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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) 295 ITR 282)(SC)   That apart, he relied on the decisions, copies of which are placed on record to drive home his point. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CIT u/s 263 and reiterated the contentions of the same. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (2008) (305 ITR 409). 7. We have heard rival submissions and considered the facts and materi....