Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Koramangala, Bangalore and The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Udupi - 574 118 V. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Cell Head Officer, Manipal - 576 104

ITA/6/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had ruled that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not apply to banking companies. The Revenue challenged this decision, citing a different interpretation and application of the law. The Tribunal's decision was based on a prior judgment by the High Court, which had found that banking companies are not subject to the provisions of Section 115JB. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision and the earlier High Court judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834940 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v/s Punjab, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. ING Vysya Bank Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHAL TIWARI
• Keywords: Banking Companies; Book Profits; Condonation of delay; Income tax appeal; Section 115JB
• Section: 115JB; 260-A

Judgement Text

" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6909-DB ITA No. 6 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 6 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), UDUPI - 574 118. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. M/S. SYNDICATE BANK, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, CELL HEAD OFFICER, MANIPAL - 576 104, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 09.10.2023 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT - Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6909-DB ITA No. 6 of 2025 ASSESSEES CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA No.337/PAN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Sushal Tiwari, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short “the Act”) calling in question the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.337/PAN/2016 dated 09.10.2023, relating to the Assessment Year 2002–03. The appeal is filed with a delay of 334 days. 3. I.A. No.1/2025 is filed seeking condonation of delay. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6909-DB ITA No. 6 of 2025 application and the reasons stated therein, this Court is satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay of 334 days in filing the above appeal is condoned. 4. The appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court: \"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's order is perverse in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangalore relating to additions made on account of Section 115JB of the Act by following decision in case of CIT V/s Punjab in ITA No.594/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court ignoring that in said case relief was granted to assessee on basis of latches on technical grounds without making any comments on merits of the case? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that provisions of Section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the Banking Companies ignoring that the provisions of said section clearly apply to all banking companies and without considering the amended provision of said Section as stipulated in sub-section 2 of Section 115JB of the Act?\" 5. The assessee is a Bank which filed its return of income. The income was assessed on the basis of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. The said assessment order was Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6909-DB ITA No. 6 of 2025 challenged in appeal, wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the application of the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by following the judgment of this Court in the assessee’s own case, held that the income of the assessee is not liable to be taxed under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. 6. At the outset, Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–assessee, submits that the issue relating to the applicability of Section 115JB of the Act to banking companies stands answered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. ING Vysya Bank Ltd. [(2020) 422 ITR 116 (Karnataka), dt. 16.01.2020]. It is submitted that this Court has held that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to banking companies. 7. Sri Sushal Tiwari, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants–Revenue, submits that the aforesaid judgment of this Court has not been accepted by the Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6909-DB ITA No. 6 of 2025 Revenue and that an appeal against the same is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the substantial questions of law raised for consideration by this Court are no longer res integra. The issue relating to the applicability of Section 115JB of the Act to banking companies stands concluded against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. (supra). 9. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15 Printed from counselvise.com "