Relief for Bank of Baroda: ITAT Rules MAT Provisions u/s 115JB Not Applicable [Read Order]
Referring to the precedents, it held that banking companies governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980, are not subject to MAT provisions under Section 115JB, as they are not required to prepare accounts as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act
![Relief for Bank of Baroda: ITAT Rules MAT Provisions u/s 115JB Not Applicable [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Bank-of-Baroda-Income-Tax-Act-Tax-Liability-taxscan.jpg "Relief for Bank of Baroda: ITAT Rules MAT Provisions u/s 115JB Not Applicable [Read Order]")
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Bank of Baroda by holding that the Minimum Alternate Tax ( MAT ) provisions under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act,1961 do not apply to it. Bank of Baroda, appellant-assessee, filed its return for AY 2015-16 on 28.9.2015, showing no income. It later revised the return, claiming an additional Rs. 200...
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Bank of Baroda by holding that the Minimum Alternate Tax ( MAT ) provisions under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act,1961 do not apply to it.
Bank of Baroda, appellant-assessee, filed its return for AY 2015-16 on 28.9.2015, showing no income. It later revised the return, claiming an additional Rs. 200 crores deduction under section 36(1)(vii), still reporting no income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices were issued for verification.
The assessing officer (AO) assessed the total income at Rs. 1,750,77,68,383 and applied section 115JB, setting the book profit at Rs. 447,95,02,243.
Income Tax 2025: Will It Save You Money or Cost You More? Find Out Inside! - Click Here
The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)], who partly allowed the appeal on 31.12.2018. Both the appellant and the revenue then appealed to the ITAT, which on 25.4.2023, sent two issues back to the CIT(A) for review,MAT provisions under section 115JB and adjustments in book profits.
The assessee submitted its arguments and asked for a VC hearing, but the CIT(A), in the order dated 23.12.2024, upheld the AO’s decision without granting the hearing.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee had appealed before the tribunal.
The two member bench comprising Keshav Dubey(Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Accountant Member) heard both sides and reviewed the material on record. The main issue was whether the provisions of Section 115JB applied to the bank.
Income Tax 2025: Will It Save You Money or Cost You More? Find Out Inside! - Click Here
The bench noted that a similar issue was decided in favour of the taxpayer in earlier cases, including Canara Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce. It referred to rulings by the Delhi Tribunal and Delhi High Court, which held that MAT under Section 115JB did not apply to banking companies governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980.
Read More: Microsoft wins Service Tax Interest Case: CESTAT cites Automatic Interest Provision u/s 11BB
It was observed that such banks were not required to prepare profit and loss accounts under Schedule VI of the Companies Act, and the provisions of Section 115JB could not be applied to them. The ITAT also noted that where there are two possible interpretations, the one favouring the taxpayer should be adopted.
Relying on these precedents, the tribunal allowed the appeal and held that Section 115JB did not apply to the bank.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
