At The Outset, Ms.chatterjee Submitted That The Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Covered By The Decision Of This Court In The Principal Commissioner Of Income T v. M/S.coffee Day Enterprises Ltd.[2], Wherein This Court Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Holding Questions Of Law In Favour Of The Assessee. The Sam

Digitally signedby ANUSHA VLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 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. 145 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) CENTRAL CIRCLE, C.R. BUILDING QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3) C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN’S ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL FOR SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. COFFEEDAY ENTERPRISES LTD NO.23/2, COFFEEDAY SQUARE VITAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 PAN: …RESPONDENT (BY Ms. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR Ms. MANASA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 07.10.2020 PASSED IN ITA NO.459/BANG/2020, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.459/BANG/2020 DATED 07.10.2020 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 ANNEXURE-C AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS ITA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal by the Revenue directed against order dated October 7, 2020 in ITA No.459/Bang/2020 for the A.Y. 2014-2015 passed by the ITAT[1], Bengaluru, has been admitted to consider the following questions of law; “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal is right in law in setting aside disallowance made by assessing authority under section 14A of the Act by holding that disallowance made voluntarily by the assessee will meet the requirements as set out in section 14A of the Act even though the conditions for invoking were satisfied in the case of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse as Tribunal has allowed relief to assessee in respect of 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal section 14A ignoring the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2014 dated 11/2/2014? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right in not appreciating the fact that CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 and ignoring the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investments Ltd (reported in 402 ITR Page 640 (SC))?” 2. Heard Shri M.Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Ms.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the assessee. 3. At the outset, Ms.Chatterjee submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the decision of this court in the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another vs. M/s.Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd.[2], wherein this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue holding questions of law in favour of the assessee. The same is not refuted by Shri Dilip. 2 ITA No.2/2020 (DD 03.01.2023) 4. Hence, the following; ORDER (i)Appeal is dismissed; and (ii)Questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61