Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
I.T.A.No.553/2016 C/W I.T.A.No.557/2016
BETWEEN: 1. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIT(A)
5th floor, BMTC Building, 80 feet road, Kormangala,
Bangalore-560095.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Circle-11(5), Present address
Circle-4(1)(1),
2nd floor, BMTC Building,
80 feet road, Kormangala,
Bangalore-560095.
… APPELLANTS (COMMON) (By Sri K.V.Aravind, Adv.)
AND:
M/s. KBD Sugars & Distilleries Ltd., No.17, Sankey Road, Bangalore-560020.
… RESPONDENT (COMMON) (By Sri V.Chandrashekar, for Sri M.Lava, Adv.)
ITA No.553/2016 is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961, praying to set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore, in ITA No.934/Bang/2013 dated 05.02.2016 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru.
ITA No.557/2016 is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961, praying to set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore, in ITA No.960/Bang/2013 dated 05.02.2016 and confirm the order of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru.
These appeals coming on for Final Hearing, this day, S.Sujatha J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 14A r/w/s 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) holding that there was no fresh investment and the assessing authority has not expressed or recorded any satisfaction by identifying the expenditure which has been incurred in contravention to the provisions in Section 14A and also contrary to the Board's Circular No.14 of the 2001 and 5 of 2001?"
2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(iii) read with Section 37 of the Act towards the advance diverted in respect of borrowed capital without appreciating the facts of the case and the materials brought out by assessing authority on record and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse in nature?
Re: substantial question of law no.1; The said substantial question of law having been considered and answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in the case of CIT VS M/S. QUEST GLOBAL ENGINEERING SERVICE PVT. LTD., in ITA No.133/2015 dated 15.02.2021, the same is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Re: substantial question of law no.2; Learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee would submit that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the decision of the cognate bench of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. Brindavan
Beverages Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.67/2015 disposed of on 26.10.2016.
Learned Counsel for the revenue could not dispute the same.
We have perused the judgment passed in ITA No.67/2015, wherein the cognate bench of this Court placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. - 313 ITR 340 as well as the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of RAGHUVIR SYNTHETICS LTD. - 354 ITR 222, has held that the said issue having been covered by the aforesaid decisions, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. It is pertinent to note that the decision in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.Nos.10 to 13 of 2019.
Following the same, we are of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE KK