Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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. 532 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL-576 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, MR.R.RAMALINGAM ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.SURYANARAYANA T, ADVOCATE)
AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, UDUPI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN.J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)
2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED ON 19.06.2013 IN ITA NOS.668 & 669/BANG/2010 AND 708 & 709/BANG/2010.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the assessee. It was admitted by the Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2014 on the following substantial question of law: “9.1 Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds and contentions urged, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount deductible under Section 36(1) (viiia) of the Act would have to be limited to the amount actually provided for in the books;
3 9.2 Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds and contentions urged: (a) The Tribunal was right in remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer for arriving at the expenditure disallowable under Section 14A of the Act? (b) The Tribunal ought to have held that no disallowance was warranted under Section 14A of the Act?
When the matter is taken up today learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that substantial question of law 9.1 is answered by this Court vide judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in ITA No.258/2011. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
It is submitted that the substantial question of law 9.2 (a) and (b) are covered by the judgment of this Court in ITA No.97/2010 vide judgment dated 17.01.2020.
Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVK