SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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. 312 OF 2014

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.

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 14.03.2014 IN ITA NOS.680/BANG/2012 AND 708/BANG/2012 TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN.

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 12.08.2014 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 ought to have held that no disallowance was warranted under Section 14A of the Act? (b) The Tribunal was right in remitting the issue of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D to the Assessing Office for having at the expenditure disallowable, even though there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning the exempt income? (c) The Tribunal ought to have held that own funds and non-interest bearing current account balances having exceeded the value of investments giving rise to exempt income innumerable times, Rule 8D(2)(ii) had no application?”

4 question of law No. 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.

Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK