THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

PDF · subscribers
ITA/141/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01045395201522 January 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law was already answered in a previous judgment. Therefore, the current appeal was disposed of in terms of that prior judgment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that deleted an addition made on account of expenditure relating to earning exempt income. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law concerning the applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

What were the issues?

Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition for expenditure related to exempt income, disregarding Section 14A and 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

ITA No.141/2015

BETWEEN:

1.

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Attavara, Mangalore.

2.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Mangalore

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. E.I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE )

AND: M/s Corporation Bank, Head Office, P.B. No.88, Mangaladevi Temple Road, Pandeshwar, Mangalore 575 001 Pan: AAACC7245E …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. BALARAM R RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.815/BANG/2011,FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the revenue.

Sri. Balaram R Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent.

This appeal, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been filed by the revenue which was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.11.2015 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition representing expenditure relating to earning of exempt income ignoring the provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Act r.w.Rule 8D?

3 2. It is a common ground that the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered by us vide judgment dated 17.01.2020 passed in ITA No.97/2010.

Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in terms of the judgment dated 17.01.2020 passed in ITA No.97/2010.

The appeal is disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Psg*

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →