THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, vs. M/S TRIANZ HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/313/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01022040202319 August 2024Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal was squarely covered by the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same Court in ITA No.133/2015, disposed of on February 15, 2021. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reasoning is based on the principle of following a co-ordinate bench's decision when the issue is identical and no contrary view or distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court is bound by its own co-ordinate bench's decisions on identical issues unless there are compelling reasons or a larger bench's intervention. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against an order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessment year in question is 2015-2016. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision which set aside an order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) that had confirmed the Assessing Officer's order. The core of the dispute revolves around a disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The Revenue's appeal is before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to formulate substantial questions of law and set aside the ITAT's order. The ITAT's order is dated November 16, 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in fact and in law in holding that where the assessee did not have exempt income, no disallowance could be made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, when the issue has not yet reached finality and the matter is pending before the Apex Court. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee argued that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal has already been answered by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in ITA No.133/2015, disposed of on February 15, 2021. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue was not in a position to dispute the assessee's contention regarding the binding precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33043-DB ITA No. 313 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 313 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX 5TH FLOOR BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/s. TRIANZ HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., No.165/2, 6TH FLOOR KALYANI MAGNUM DORAISANNIPALYA, IIM POST BENNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076. PAN: AAFCA 8051P. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN IT(TP)A No.2639/BANG/2019 DATED 16.11.2021 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 ANNEXURE-D AND

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33043-DB ITA No. 313 of 2023

CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DRP CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), BENGALURU AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) 1. Heard Sri Sushal Tiwari N., learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumr, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the appeal papers. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the above appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. Sri Sushal Tiwari N., learned counsel would submit that the appeal is filed raising the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in fact and in law in holding that where the assessee did not have exempt income, no disallowance could be made under Section 14A r.w.r 8D when the issue has not yet reached finality and matter is pending before the Apex Court.”

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33043-DB ITA No. 313 of 2023

4.

Learned counsel for respondent – Assesse would submit that the substantial question of law raised in the present appeal is already answered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ITA No.133/2015 disposed of on 15.02.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue is not in a position to dispute the same. 6. We have gone through the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 15.02.2021 in ITA No.133/2015. 7. The substantial question of law raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision referred above. The appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of Assessee against the Revenue.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →