STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/661/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01048235201820 February 2023Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the questions of law were in favor of the Revenue. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case involving the State Bank of India.

What were the facts?

The assessee, State Bank of India, appealed against an ITAT order concerning the levy of tax and interest for non-deduction of TDS on leave travel expenses. The appeal raised questions about the justification of tax/interest levy and the denial of exemption for leave travel expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the levy of tax and interest under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was justified. Whether the denial of exemption under Section 10(5) for leave travel expenses was correct, especially when foreign travel was involved in a circuitous route.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 10(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, - 3 -

- 1 - ITA No. 661/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

STATE BANK OF INDIA GOLLAHALLI BRANCH P.O: AVALGURKI CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA-562 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER SRI. D.N. HARI S/O SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PAN NO. AAACS8577K …APPELLANT

(BY MS. JINITA CHATERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-18(2), [TDS CIRCLE-3(1)] NO.59, HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU-560 032 …RESPONDENT

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

THE ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.04.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1404/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 - ITA No. 661/2018

STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.04.2018 IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANT’S APPEALS IN ITA NO.1404/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ETC.

THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the assessee directed against order dated April 6, 2018 in ITA No.1404/Bang/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 passed by the ITAT1, Bengaluru, has been admitted to consider the following questions of law; “1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority?

2) Whether denial of exemption under Section 10(5) of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 2B of the IT Rules, 1962 of reimbursement of leave travel expenses as claimed by the employee of the Appellant was justifiable?

3) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in the light of the provisions of Section 10(5) of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 2B of the IT Rules, 1962 when the employee has undertaken circuitous route which included foreign leg, the exemption is totally denied without considering the expenditure involved by the shortest route from the place of departure to the place of destination when both the places are within India?”

2.

Heard Ms.Jinitha Chaterjee, learned advocate for the assessee and Shri M.Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue.

1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

- 3 - ITA No. 661/2018

3.

At the outset, Shri Dilip submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax2, wherein the Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the questions of law in favour of the Revenue. The same is not refuted by Ms.Jinitha Chaterjee.

4.

Hence, the following;

ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed; and (ii) Questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

2 [2022] 144 taxmann.com 131 (SC)

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →