THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs SHREE SHANTAPPANNA MIRAJI URBAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

I.T.A.NO.100040/2017

BETWEEN:

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, OPP: CIVIL HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI.

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BELAGAVI. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI Y V RAVIRAJ, ADV.)

AND

SHREE SHANTAPPANNA MIRAJI URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD., GURUWAR PETH, CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001. ... RESPONDENT

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED ABOVE; ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI IN ITA NO.131/PAN/2017 DATED 16.06.2017 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELAGAVI.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

: 2 :

JUDGMENT Office objections are overruled.

The issue involved in this appeal is no more res integra, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of the Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax and another V/s Shri Veer Pulakeshi Co-operative Bank Limited, I.T.A.No.100039/2017 (D.D. 29.01.2018), whereby this Court has held that when an asset becomes non-performing, it ceases to yield income and once a particular asset is shown to be a non-performing asset, then it is nothing but no Revenue is yielded. In such cases, paying tax would not arise and accordingly, substantial question of law is answered against the Revenue.

In view of the above, the substantial question of law raised in this appeal requires to be answered against the Revenue and is answered accordingly.

: 3 : Hence, appeal stands dismissed.

[Sd/-] JUDGE [Sd/-] JUDGE

CLK

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHREE SHANTAPPANNA MIRAJI URBAN