PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 V. KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD

ITA/288/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside a disallowance of Rs.29,26,30,066 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute centered on whether the Tribunal was correct in its decision, given the provisions of Section 14A which pertain to expenditures related to earning exempt income. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision was perverse and did not appreciate that the investment in share application money would only result in exempt income, thus invoking the provisions of Section 14A. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, citing a precedent where a similar issue was decided against the Revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 745947 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ITA.No.168/2019, ITA.No.427/Bang/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: SANMATHI
• Keywords: Disallowance; Exempt income; Income tax appeal; Rule 8D; Section 14A
• Section: 14A; 8D(2); 260-A

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR I.T.A.No.288/2021 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BMTC COMPLEX, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD., KSFC BHAVAN, NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BENGALURU-560 052. PAN: AAACK9480H …RESPONDENT - 2 - THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 04/03/2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.1420/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 2015 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) assailing the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Bangalore, (“Tribunal” for short) dated 04.03.2021 relating to the assessment year 2014- 15. 2. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue read as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting - 3 - aside the disallowance of Rs.29,26,30,066/- as the ingredients of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) are satisfied in the case of the assessee and without appreciating that the investment in the form of share application money by the company would only result in exempt income and provision of Section 14A would clearly apply? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse as the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of disallowance of Section 14A read with Rule 8D as well despite the fact that the provisions to Section 14A makes it clear that expenditure relating to the earning of exempt income has to be worked out as per said Rules and assessing authority has computed said disallowances, which is attributable to the earning of exempt income as per CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11/2/2014, wherein Board has made it clear that said disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D has to be made even when there assessee has not having exempt income in a particular year?” - 4 - 3. The Tribunal considering the identical issues in the assessee’s own case relating to the assessment year 2011-12 has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. It is significant to note that the Revenue has preferred ITA.No.168/2019 against the said order of the Tribunal passed in ITA.No.427/Bang/2017 dated 24.09.2018 relating to the assessment year 2011-12 and the same came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as per the order dated 26.03.2021 observing that an identical appeal has already been decided and the question of law has been answered against the Revenue and accordingly, answered substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. In the light of the aforesaid, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present case also. - 5 - 5. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main matter, all pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE PB "