VIJAYA BANK vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

ITA NO. 396 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

VIJAYA BANK HEAD OFFICE, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT NO.41/2, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESETNED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) MR MURALI RAMASWAMY ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.SURYANARAYANA T, ADVOCATE)

AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU) BANGALORE JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085

2 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU) BANGALORE, JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-56 085

LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT(LTU) BANGALORE, JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-56 085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ITAT, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU, PRONOUNCED ON 27/02/2015 IN ITA NO.578/BANG/2012 (ANNEXURE ‘C’), TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN; AND PASS SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Appeal has been filed by the assessee. It was admitted by this Court on following substantial question of law.

3 “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the grounds raised: 1. The Tribunal was right in holding that the amount deductible under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act would have to be limited to the amount actually provided for in the books; and 2. without prejudice and in any event, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the Appellant’s alternate contention that the shortfall in the present year between the upper limit allowable under Section 36(1)(viia) and the actual amount created as a provision in its books in the present year ought to nevertheless be allowed as a deduction in the present year on account of the provision created in the subsequent year that was in excess of such shortfall?”

4 2. When the matter was taken up today the learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed by this Court in I.T.A. No.258/2011.

In view of the aforesaid submission the substantial questions of law are answered in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK