THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/135/2011HC KeralaKLHC01026483201126 September 2011Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal had previously found this disallowance to be unsustainable. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding. The reasoning provided in the judgment is that the disallowance was not in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that disallowances under Section 40(a)(iib) must be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and if not, they are liable to be deleted. The operative direction is that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, upholding the ITAT's order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur, against the order dated 11/02/2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, in ITA No. 66/2009. The respondent is M/s. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges the decision of the ITAT, which had previously ruled in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 66/2009. The specific amount in dispute is not mentioned. The procedural history involves the assessee filing an appeal before the ITAT, which then passed the order now under challenge by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(iib) was incorrect. The ITAT, in its order, found that the disallowance was not sustainable. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court in this appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, contends that the Tribunal erred in its decision. The Revenue likely argued that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) was justified. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Revenue's arguments before the High Court, but the filing of the appeal implies disagreement with the ITAT's finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(iib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 ITA.No. 135 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST ORDER DATED 11/02/2011 IN ITA.66/2009 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- M/S. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, TRICHUR-680 020. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA NO.135/2011

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 28/12/2007. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.38/RI/TCR/CIT(A)-V/2007-08 DATED 14/10/2008. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF ORDER OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.66/COCH/2009 DATED 11/02/2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.A.No.135 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Since the issue raised is covered by the judgment in I.T.A. No.946/2009 dated 09/10/2009, following the said judgment, we dismiss this Appeal filed by the Revenue. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg

More judgments on Section 40(a)(iib)

All 76 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(iib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →