THE ASST.COMMISSIONER vs. M/S KRISHNA GRAMEENA BANK

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR I.T.A. No.200006/2016 BETWEEN: THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 GULBARGA ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S KRISHNA GRAMEENA BANK HEAD OFFICE KUSNOOR ROAD, GULBARGA-585103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S.ANNAMALAI AND SRI M.LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 206A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 6.5.2016 (RECEIVED BY

2 THE DEPARTMENT ON 8.7.2016), PASSED IN I.T.A.NO.592/BANG/2014 BY THE IT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN SO FAR AS PARTLY REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2014 PASSED IN I.T.A.NO.CIT (A)/93/HBL/2013-14/AY10-11 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HUBLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The substantial question of law that arises for decision making in this appeal is whether the deduction towards the expenditure of amortization of the premium paid on purchase of government securities can be allowed, in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. Addl. CIT reported in 187 ITR 541 (SC)? 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri A. Shankar, appearing for the respondent-Assessee submits that the

3 issue stands covered by various decisions, including that of The Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank in I.T.A.No.100014/2014 dated 14.12.2015 (Kar.). A list of other decisions are also cited by the learned Senior Counsel. 3. Although learned counsel Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, appearing for the appellant/revenue does not concede that the issue stands covered, nevertheless, he is not forthcoming with any other decision which is rendered subsequent to the decision in the case of Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank (supra), which covers the issue or which has taken different view from that of said decision. 4. Consequently, we proceed to hold that the issue stands covered by the decision in the case of Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank (supra).

4 5. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed by answering the substantial question of law in favour of respondent/assessee and against the appellant/revenue. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE sdu