THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. M/S GMR HIGHWYS LTD,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/620/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01053839202309 December 2024Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. It followed its own previous order in a similar case involving the same assessee, answering the substantial question of law against the revenue.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-2017. The core issue was the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee, and if the ITAT's order to this effect was perverse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

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.

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:50688-DB ITA No. 620 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(2), BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI .N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. E.I.SANMATHI., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S GMR HIGHWYS LTD, NO 25/1, SKIP HOUSE, MUSEUM ROAD, BANAGALORE-25 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BALARAM .R RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO (1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HONBLE COURT AS

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:50688-DB ITA No. 620 of 2023

DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25/05/2022 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 495/BANG/2020 FOR A.Y 2016-2017 (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

This appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘ITAT’) dated 25.05.2022 in ITA No.495/Bang/2020, whereby the ITAT has partly allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-2017.

2.

The memorandum of appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in holding that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration ignoring that Section 14A do not stipulate such restriction and

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:50688-DB ITA No. 620 of 2023

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No.5/2014, dated 11 February 2014 has clarified that Rule 8D of the Rules read with Section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of expenditure even where taxpayer has not earned any exempt income in a particular year?”

3.

Mr.Balaram R Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee states that, the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, most particularly, in view of the order passed by this Court in ITA No.613/2023, decided on 23.09.2024, in the case of the assessee, it self. 4. Mr.Sanmathi and Mr.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenue are not in a position to dispute the aforesaid submission of Mr.Balaram R Rao.

5.

The order passed by this Court in ITA No.613/2023 dated 23.09.2024, paragraphs Nos.3 to 5 reads as under: “ 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is answered against the Revenue in PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 41 (KARNATAKA). Therefore,

- 4 -

NC: 2024:KHC:50688-DB ITA No. 620 of 2023

he submits that the appeal needs to be rejected at the stage of admission itself. 4. Learned Sri.E.I.Sanmathi., appearing for the appellants/Revenue is not a position to dispute the same. 5. In view of the above, appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission answering the substantial question of law against the appellants/Revenue and in favour of the respondent/assessee.”

6.

For parity of reasons, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission answering substantial questions of law against the appellants-revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee.

7.

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →