Commissioner Of Income Tax-Patiala v. State Bank Of Patiala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH he fITA No. 195 of 2017 (O&M)Date of Decision: 23.01.2020 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA APPELLANTVERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALARESPONDENT2.ITA No. 220 of 2012 (O&M)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALAAPPELLANTVERSUSSTATE BANK OF PATIALARESPONDENT3.ITA No. 257 of 2011 (O&M)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALAAPPELLANTVERSUSSTATE BANK OF PATIALARESPONDENT4.ITA No. 271 of 2011 (O&M)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALAAPPELLANTVERSUSSTATE BANK OF PATIALARESPONDENT 5. ITA No. 259 of 2011 (O&M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA VERSUS APPELLANT STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT AND 6. ITA No. 258 of 2011 (O&M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA VERSUS APPELLANT STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGANHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present:Mr. Jitin Kohli, Jr. Standing Counsel forMr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant.Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with| Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocatefor the respondent. for the respondent. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): """" By this common order, we shall dispose of the afore-said appeals as the same question of law is involved. For convenience the facts are takenfrom ITA No. 195 of 2017.| ?DBy this appeal, appellant has challenged the order dated11.08.2016 passed in ITA No. 126/Chd/2009. 3The following substantial question of law is raised in the present appeal: 5Whether in thefacts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'bleITAT, Chandigarh ts legally correct in upholding the decision ofthe CIT(A) regarding restricting the addition of 22,52,08,661/-to 66,44,710/- made on account of apportionment of expensesagainst exempted income u/s 144 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961?” 4Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the tollowingappeals are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Courtrendered in ITA Nos. 64 and 66 of 2009, titled asCommissioner of IncomeTax, Patiala vs. State Bank of Patiala,decided on 09.04.2019 as well as thedecision of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the appellant is not inposition to deny this factual assertion. 5 Consequently the appeals are dismissed. 6 Since the main case has been dismissed, learned counsel for theasseessee prays for the withdrawal of cross-objection No. 89-CII of 2017 inITA No. 195 of 2017. Allowed as prayed for. TiCross-objection is dismissed as withdrawn. IAJAY TEWARI]JUDGE JIAVNEESH JHINGANJUDGE January 23, 2020 sham 1. Whether speaking/ reasonedYes/No2. Whether reportableYes/No