AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der for the sake of convenience & brevity. First, we take up appeal for AY 2015-16 wherein the grounds raised by the assessee reads as under: - 1. The Id. CIT erred on jurisdiction by invoking revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act to hold that provisions of section 115JB are applicable to appellant even though AO in order itself had applied section 115JB and the said issue was not in the show cause notice sent to appellant u/s 263. 1.1 The Id. CIT erred in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 and directing AO to add back amounts in respect of bad and doubtful debts and investments which were written off and staff welfare expenses which were examined by AO and allowed in assessment. 2. Without prejudice to above, Id.CIT erred in ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and provision for taxes as against book Profits of Rs. 3398.43 Crores reflected by the assessee in its return of income. 2.1 Subsequently, upon perusal of case records, Ld. Pr.CIT invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 and issued show-cause notice on 05/03/2019. The basis of invoking the jurisdiction was the fact that certain provisions of bad debts for Rs. 4545.83 Crores as debited in the P & L account were not added back while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB. Further, certain provisions such as provisions for depreciation on investments, staff welfare expenses and other provisions were added back while computing the income under normal provisions, however, the same were not added back while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB. By conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee's submissions were duly considered in the light of notes to clauses to Finance Act, 2012, the provisions of Section 11 of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and other provisions of The Companies Act. Finally, it was concluded that the proviso to Sec 211(2) of the Companies Act applies not only to the companies incorporated under the Companies Act but also to the banking companies governed by special acts and the assessee was covered by Section 211(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Hyderabad Tribunal in State Bank of Hyderabad V/s DCIT (ITA No.1364/Hyd/2013) to support the said conclusion. The decision of Kolkata Tribunal in UCO Bank V/s DCIT (ITA No. 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing income as aforesaid. The Ld. Pr.CIT, excising revisional jurisdiction, observed that certain omissions took place on the part of Ld. AO, while computing Book Profits u/s 115JB. The prime argument of Ld. AR would revolve around the fact that the provisions of Section 115JB would not apply to the case of the assessee, with which we are not concerned. We find that the issue before us is to test the validity of revisional jurisdiction as exercised by Ld. Pr.CIT u/s 263 and nothing beyond. If the assessment order was found to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the same would certainly become subject matter of revision u/s 263 as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000 243 ITR 83). T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 426.81 Crores which was accepted by Ld. AO disregarding the fact that the assessee did not create special reserve to that extent as per the requirement of Section 36(1)(viii). Failure on the part of Ld. AO to consider the same, in the opinion of Ld. Pr.CIT, has rendered the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In defense, the assessee submitted that the reserve created in subsequent years would amount to fulfillment of the condition of Sec. 36(1)(viii). However, Ld. Pr.CIT, upon perusal of statutory provisions of Sec. 36(1)(viii), observed that the amount claimed as deduction should have been carried to such reserve account during the relevant previous year. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'b....