Commissioner Of Income Tax,L.t.u v. Uco Bank

OD-27 ITA/51/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,L.T.U. -Versus- UCO BANK BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANIAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJDate : 30[th] November, 2023 Appearance :Ms. Smita Das De, Adv....for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv.Mr. Sanjay Bhomik, Adv....for the respondent. The Court : Heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standingcounsel for the appellant/Income Tax Department and Mr. J. P.Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhowmik,learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee.This appeal was admitted on 11[th] May, 2018 on thefollowing substantial question of law: “Whether a nationalized banking company wouldbe subject to the requirements of Section 115JB of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ?” Both the learned counsel for the parties jointlysubmit that substantial question of law as above-noted isconcluded against the revenue by a judgment of Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kerala StateElectricity Board reported in [2022]447 ITR 193 (SC) and alsoby a Division Bench judgment of this Court in PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Damodar Valley Corporationreported in [2022]137 taxmann.com 338 (Calcutta). They jointly submit that the question needs to beanswered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue andthe appeal deserves to be dismissed. In view of the aforesaid, the substantial question oflaw above-noted is answered in favour of the assessee andagainst the revenue. The appeal (ITA/51/2018) is, thus, dismissed. (SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.) (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)