Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6831
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (BANGALORE BENCH)
Shri Waseem Ahmed, ACJ, Shri Keshav Dubey, J
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank (erstwhile Circle – 2(2)(1), Syndicate Bank) – Respondent
ITA No. 1495 - 1499/Bang/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Vishal Bhat - CA
For the Respondents: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
The provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to nationalized banks for determining Minimum Alternate Tax.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 115JB - Applicability of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) - It was submitted that the provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee being a banking company - The Tribunal held, supported by precedents, that MAT provisions under Section 115JB do not apply to nationalized banks, reinforcing previous judicial conclusions - The appeal was dismissed based on consistent rulings: "Ground No.4 raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed" - The revenue's appeal was found to lack merit. (Paras 2-9)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of jurisdiction and background information. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments about mat applicability to banking company. (Para 3) |
| 3. reasoning and analysis by the court to support conclusions. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. final decision on the appeals dismissed. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. key determination on the non-applicability of section 115jb. (Para 7) |
ORDER
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This set of appeals is filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the NFAC vide order dated 29-03-2025 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18.
ITA No. 1495/Bang/2025 for the AY 2013-14
2. The only interconnected issued raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of sec. 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee being a Banking Company.
3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the assessee is a bank and therefore, it is outside the purview of MAT provision specified u/s 115JB of the Act. The ld. AR in support of his contention relied on the order of this Tribunal in its own case for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 vide ITA Nos. 937 and 938/Bang/2024 order dated 16/10/2024 reported in 2025/TIOL/116. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR could not controvert the arguments advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee but vehemently supported the order of the AO.
5. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we note that the issue on hand is covered in favour of the assessee in its own case cited above. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:
“8. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in asseessee’s own case in ITA Nos.1219/Bang/2019 & ITA No.186/PAN/2019 dated 8.8.2024, wherein the Tribunal held as under:
“9. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration in the case of Canara Bank in ITA Nos.391 & 392/Bang/2023 for the assessment year 2019-20. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.12.2023 held as under:
“11. Ground No.4 raised by assessee is on applicability of provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that, the assessee does not fall within definition of banking company as defined under Companies Act, 1956 and therefore it is not covered by proviso to section 211(2) of the Companies Act. The Ld. AR thus submitted that provisions of s. 115JB are not applicable to assessee. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Punjab National Bank Ltd. (successor of erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) in ITA 594/2023 by order dated 20/10/2023, wherein the question of law considered by the court is proposed in question (e) has been dismissed. The said order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Punjab National Bank Ltd. (successor of erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) (supra) is placed at page 35-37 of the PB. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024. The Ld.AR further relied on decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v. ACIT reported in [2022] TIOL 331 ITAT-DEL. The Ld.AR submitted that, the provisions of section 115JB, as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. He submitted that coordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal considered this issue by observing as under:-
“51. This issue is no longer res-judicata following judgments of the tribunals and the High Courts wherein it is categorically held that MAT provision u/s 115JB will not apply to a Banking Company: - Canara Bank vs JCIT, LTU in ITA No. 530/Bng/2010 & other dtd. 30.03.2016 = 2016- TIOL-1120-HC-P&H-IT - M/s. Canara Bank vs CIT(LTU) In ITA No. 305/Bang/2011 dtd. 18.06.2012 - Krung Thai Bank PCI vs Joint Director of Income Tax (ITAT) (Mumbai) in ITA No.3390/Mum/09 dtd. 30.09.20
