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. 100 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL-576 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, MR.I.P.NAGARAJA RAO ...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 HEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED ON 13.01.2012 IN ITA NOS.492 & 504/2009 TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri. T. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by the assessee which was admitted by this Court on following substantial questions of law.
“9.1. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds urged: (a) the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue re. write off of bad debts relating to urban branches to the Assessing Officer?
3 (b) The Tribunal ought to have, following jurisdictional High Court’s judgment besides other High Court rulings, upheld the Appellant’s claim for deduction u/s.36(1)(vii) of the Act? 9.2. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds 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 u/s. 14A of the Act? 9.3. Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds urged, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Appellant was not liable to MAT?”
When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel jointly submitted that the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision rendered by a Bench of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VIJAYA BANK IN ITA NO.1066/2008 DATED 21.10.2014.
4 3. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered in terms of the judgment dated 21.10.2014 passed in ITA No.1066/2008.
It is jointly submitted that the second substantial question of law is answered by this Court in ITA No.97/2010 by judgment dated 17.01.2020 in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the same is answered.
It is also jointly submitted that the thirdtantial question of law is covered by the decision of this Court in ITA No.18/2014 dated 16.01.2020. Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee. In the result appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE BVK