THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DUSTER TOTAL SOLUTIONS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/297/2018HC KarnatakaKAHC01050985201808 June 2021Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision was just and proper, following a previous Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that disallowed disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The High Court had to decide if the Tribunal was correct in its holding.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that no disallowance could be made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 260-A

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

I.T.A. NO.297 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

2 . THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

M/S. DUSTER TOTAL SOLUTIONS SERVICES PVT. LTD., NO.50, 4TH FLOOR, ZATAKIA CENTRE, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038. PAN: AACCD 5989Q. …RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. M.R.VANAJA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED: 19.12.2017 PASSED IN C.O.NO.39/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING THIS HON`BLE COURT TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED IN THE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN C.O. NO.39/BANG/2017, AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the revenue challenging the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru, in Cross Objn No. 39/Bang/2017 in respect of the assessment year 2013-14 relating to the respondent – assessee.

2.

This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that there cannot be any disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D”?

3.

We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent – assessee.

4.

It is not in dispute that the question of law framed by this Court in this appeal has already been considered by Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax and another vs. Sabari Enterprises [(2008) 298 ITR 141].

5.

We have perused the judgment rendered in the aforesaid case and we find that the reasons set out therein to disallow the contention of the revenue are just and proper and do not call for any reconsideration.

6.

In that view of the matter, the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

In view of the above, the appeal is bereft of merits and therefore, the same is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

sma

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →