State Bank of India Gollahalli Branch V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Circle-18(2)

ITA/661/2018

AI Insights

The case involves the State Bank of India, Gollahalli Branch, appealing against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which upheld the tax and interest levies imposed by the TDS authority for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The appellant contested the denial of exemption for reimbursement of leave travel expenses under Section 10(5) of the IT Act, 1961, read with Rule 2B of the IT Rules, 1962, particularly when the employee took a circuitous route including a foreign leg. The High Court of Karnataka, referencing a decision by the Apex Court in a similar case, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the ITAT's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 818857 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: State Bank of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961, IT Rules 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M DILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: JINITA CHATERJEE
• Keywords: Exemption denial; Income tax appeal; TDS; Leave Travel Expenses
• Section: 201(1); 201(1A); 10(5); 2B; 260-A

Judgement Text

"- 1 - ITA No. 661/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2018 BETWEEN: STATE BANK OF INDIA GOLLAHALLI BRANCH P.O: AVALGURKI CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA-562 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER SRI. D.N. HARI S/O SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PAN NO. AAACS8577K …APPELLANT (BY MS. JINITA CHATERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-18(2), [TDS CIRCLE-3(1)] NO.59, HMT BHAVAN BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU-560 032 …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. M. DILIP STANDING COUNSEL FOR SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THE ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 06.04.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.1404/BANG/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - ITA No. 661/2018 STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.04.2018 IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANT’S APPEALS IN ITA NO.1404/BANG/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ETC. THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the assessee directed against order dated April 6, 2018 in ITA No.1404/Bang/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 passed by the ITAT1, Bengaluru, has been admitted to consider the following questions of law; “1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act as determined by the TDS authority? 2) Whether denial of exemption under Section 10(5) of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 2B of the IT Rules, 1962 of reimbursement of leave travel expenses as claimed by the employee of the Appellant was justifiable? 3) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in the light of the provisions of Section 10(5) of the IT Act, 1961 read with Rule 2B of the IT Rules, 1962 when the employee has undertaken circuitous route which included foreign leg, the exemption is totally denied without considering the expenditure involved by the shortest route from the place of departure to the place of destination when both the places are within India?” 2. Heard Ms.Jinitha Chaterjee, learned advocate for the assessee and Shri M.Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. 1 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - 3 - ITA No. 661/2018 3. At the outset, Shri Dilip submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax2, wherein the Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the questions of law in favour of the Revenue. The same is not refuted by Ms.Jinitha Chaterjee. 4. Hence, the following; ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed; and (ii) Questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE AV 2 [2022] 144 taxmann.com 131 (SC) "