THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S CANARA BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/206/2019HC KarnatakaKAHC01034358201905 December 2022Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals as the questions of law did not survive for consideration. The assessee's counsel submitted that in view of the disposal of ITAs No. 207 and 208 of 2019, the present appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the ITAT's findings did not survive. This submission was not opposed by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the Court held that the appeals were dismissed without answering the questions of law, as they were rendered unnecessary. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals, ITA No. 205 of 2019 and ITA No. 206 of 2019, before the High Court of Karnataka. These appeals challenged orders dated September 28, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 1881/Bang/2017 and ITA No. 1882/Bang/2017, respectively. ITA No. 205 of 2019 pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-2015, and ITA No. 206 of 2019 pertains to AY 2013-2014. The appeals were admitted to consider substantial questions of law. The assessee is M/s Canara Bank.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide six questions of law, framed by the Revenue, concerning the ITAT's orders. These questions relate to: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in setting aside the claim of unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts, given the bank accounts were prepared on an accrual basis and revenue recognized on a mercantile method, except for certain cash-basis items. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in setting aside the claim of unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts, when the assessing authority had denied it based on the bank's accounting methods. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in allowing depreciation on investments in HTM Securities, despite the assessee treating them as stock-in-trade and claiming depreciation across all assessment years. 4. Whether the ITAT was correct in setting aside disallowances under Section 36(1)(viia) by relying on an earlier judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank, which had not reached finality, and when the assessing authority considered only incremental advances for 'Aggregate Rural Advances' as per Rule 6ABA. 5. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting disallowances made under Section 14A, when the conditions for invoking the provision were fully satisfied. 6. Whether the ITAT was correct in setting aside disallowances on account of AFS and HFT category investments by relying on decisions that had not reached finality, and when the assessing authority had disallowed depreciation on these investments and added them to taxable income. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in its findings on these issues. The assessee argued that the appeals were superfluous and unnecessary due to the disposal of other related appeals (ITAs No. 207 and 208 of 2019).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 36(1)(viia),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

ITA No. 205 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 206 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2019 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2019

IN I.T.A NO. 205 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE ADDL./JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. K.V.ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

M/S CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE, NO.112 J.C.ROAD, TOWN HALL BENGALURU-560 002. PAN-AAACC 6106G …RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. T.SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: High Court Of Karnataka

- 2 -

ITA No. 205 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 206 of 2019

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:28/09/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1881/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.

IN ITA NO. 206 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095.

2.

THE ADDL./JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU 7TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. K.V.ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

M/S CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE, NO.112 J.C.ROAD, TOWN HALL BENGALURU-560 002. PAN - AAACC 6106G …RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:28/09/2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1882/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.

- 3 -

ITA No. 205 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 206 of 2019

THESE INCOME TAX APPEALs, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

ITA No.205/2019 by the Revenue challenging the order dated September 28, 2018 in ITA No.1881/Bang/2017 for the A.Ys. 2014-15 and ITA No.206/2019 by the Revenue challenging the order dated September 28, 2018 in ITA No.1882/Bang/2017 for the A.Ys. 2013-14 have been admitted to consider the following questions of law; "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside claim of assessee relating to unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts as the bank accounts were admittedly prepared on accrual basis and revenue was recognized following mercantile method except for certain items which were accounted on cash basis? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside claim of assessee relating to unrealized gains on revaluation of forward contracts when assessing authority rightly denied the same by holding that as the bank accounts were admittedly prepared on accrual basis and revenue was recognized by following mercantile method except for certain items which were accounted on cash basis? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation in value of investment in

- 4 -

ITA No. 205 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 206 of 2019

HTM Securities ignoring the fact that HTM Securities are treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee-bank and depreciation has been claimed in all the assessment years? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances made under section 36(1) (viia) of the Act by the assessing authority by placing reliance on its earlier judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank even though the said judgment has not reached finality and assessing authority had rightly observed that only incremental advances has to be considered for computing 'Agreegate Rural Advances' as per Rule 6ABA of Income Tax Rules? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act by even when the conditions for invoking said provisions as fully satisfied in the case of the assessee? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowances on account of AFS and HFT category of investments by relying upon the decisions which has not reached finality and even when the assessing authority rightly disallowed the depreciation on investment of Available for Sale (AFS) and held for trading (HFT) category investment and added to the taxable income?"

2.

Heard Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri T.Suryanarayana, learned Senior Advocate for the assessee. 3. At the outset, Shri Suryanarayana submitted that in view of the disposal of ITAs No.207 and 208 of 2019, these two appeals do not survive for consideration.

- 5 -

ITA No. 205 of 2019 C/W ITA No. 206 of 2019

He further submitted that the Revenue has filed these two appeals challenging the findings recorded by the ITAT1 in Revenue's appeals and those issues were not under consideration before the ITAT. Therefore, these appeals are superfluous and unnecessary. The said submission is not opposed by Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Senior Standing Counsel. 4. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed as the questions of law do not survive for consideration and hence, not answered.

No costs.

SD/- JUDGE

SD/- JUDGE

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →