TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were right in law in holding that Banking companies are not liable for Minimum Alternate Tax u/s.115JB of the Act against the provisions of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Tribunal were right in law in holding that the assessee bank is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, when the assessee has not debited any bad debts write off in the profit and loss account and only the provision for bad debts (prudential write off) has been claimed as deduction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20,00,00,000/- claimed under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act in respect of special reserve created from the profit earned from long term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in providing long term finance for sectors mentioned therein. The Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 143,12,69,349/- being excess provision claimed under Section 36(vii-a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed on securities classified as 'Held to Maturity' and further held that the assessee had earned aggregate sum of Rs. 68,65,73,177/, which is exempt under various sub-Sections of Section 10 of the Act and disallowed the afor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de order dated 21.10.2014 passed in ITA No.1066/2008. The aforesaid fact also could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. Thus, for the reasons assigned by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2014 passed in ITA No.1066/2008, the second substantial question of law is also answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. Now we may advert to the third substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the assessee again pointed out that the third substantial question of law is also been answered against the revenue in the case of 'KARNATAKA BANK LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)', '[2013] 34 taxmann.com 150 (Karnataka)'. The aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied entity' which includes Banking Company. Therefore, it is submitted that the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as it was in existence prior to its amendment with effect from 01.04.2008, confined the benefit of Financial Corporation and the expression 'Financial Corporation' included the Government Company as well as Public Company. It is further submitted that the assessee, namely, Vijaya Bank in any case, is a Public as well as Government Company as it fulfills the requirement of Sections 3 and 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompany and a Government company; (b) "public company" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (c) "Government company" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);" 10. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was available to a Financial Corporation, which included the Public Company and Government Company. The explanation appended to clause (viii) further specifies that expression 'Public Company' shall have the meaning assigned to it under Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the expression 'Government Company' shall have the meaning ....