Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
I.T.A. NO.1055 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PVT. LTD. 37, RMJ MANDOTH TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, BENGALURU-560016. PAN: AACCA 9267G …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED
2 07.07.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.494/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO; (a) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE; (b) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.243/Bang/2016 DATED 07.07.2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’).
The subject matter of the appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:
3 1) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that carbon credit receipts are liable to be treated as capital receipts even when the assessee as claimed under section 80IA on said receipts on sale of power and the nature of receipts are in the nature of capital receipts”?
2) “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance of Rs.74.02 lakhs made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act by relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of M/s.Chemnivest Ltd even when CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the disallowance and without appreciating the Board’s Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11/2/2014, whereby it is stipulated that section 14A attracts even when there is no exempt income earned by assessee during the current financial year”?
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that he is confining his submission to the second substantial question of law.
In view of the aforesaid submission, Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the assessee
4 submits that the aforesaid issue has already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue vide order dated 15.02.2021 passed in ITA No.133/2015.
The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the counsel for the revenue.
For the reasons assigned by us in the order dated 15.02.2021 passed in ITA No.133/2015, the second substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Hence, we do not find any merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE GH