TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following questions of law:- A. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that section 115JA of the I.T. Act, 1961 will not apply in the case of the assessee on the ground that, as it is a banking company, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies to it, and as it is not constituted as a company under the Companies Act, 1956, hence it is not required to prepare profit and loss account as per Schedule VI of that Act?". B. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not taking into account that provisions of section 5(d) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 defines a company to include a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not taking into account the provisions of section 2 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which provides that the provisions of that Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the Companies Act, 1956 and any other law in force unless there is an express provision, which is not the case of the assessee?" G. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not making a conjoint reading of sections 591 to 602 of Companies Act, 1956, with sections 2, 5(c), 5 (d) and 29(3) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 along with section 115JA(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 while holding that section 115JA of the I. T. Act is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Section 115JB would not be applicable to a Banking Company prior to its amendment by virtue of the Finance Act, 2012. In the present case, we find that questions (A) to (G) would be squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Union Bank of India (Supra). Hence, questions (A) to (G), in our opinion, do not give rise to any substantial question of law, and hence, are not entertained. 3. As far as question (H) is concerned, the same relates to whether Section 44C of the I.T. Act would apply to the amounts paid by the Head Office of the Assessee outside India as salary to expatriate employees posted in India with the Permanent Establishment. In this regard, on perusing Section 44C, it is clear that the same applies in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld fall within the said Explanation. The flip side of this is that if the salary is paid to a person employed in India or managing an office in India, the same cannot be termed as Head Office Expenditure and, consequently, Section 44C would have no application. 5. In the facts of the present case, as per the question of law (H) framed by the Revenue, it is an admitted position that salary has been paid to employees posted in India i.e. in the branch of the Assessee in India which is a Permanent Establishment. Once this is the case, we find that Section 44C is wholly inapplicable in as far as the salary is paid to the expatriate employees of the Assessee posted in India with its Permanent Establishment. Hence, we find that even question (....