Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1 vs. Y. R. Ramana

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.751 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU, JSS TOWERS

BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

LTU, C.R. BUILDING, JSS TOWERS

BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. .... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (COMPLIANCE) COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MANASA ANANTHAN, ADV., FOR SRI. T SURYANARAYANA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 24.03.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.439/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO:

2 (i) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. (ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.439/BANG/2013 DATED 24.03.2017 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BENGALURU. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.Manasa Ananthan, learned counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel for the revenue is permitted to correct the cause title. 2. 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. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2017 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was

3 right in law in deleting the disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of broken period interest by relying on the decision of the Apex court in case of CIT V/s Citi Bank and distinguishing the facts in the case of Vijaya Bank V/s CIT (reported in 187 ITR page 541(SC) without appreciating that the assessee is an Indian Banking Company and nature and purpose of securities on which broken period interest paid can be clearly distinguished?". 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal has already been answered by this Court in ITA No.27/2013 c/w ITA No.26/2013 vide judgment dated 08.09.2020. The aforesaid aspect of the matter could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 4. For the reasons assigned by us in judgment dated 08.09.2020 passed in ITA No.27/2013 c/w ITA No.26/2013, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

4 In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV