Ita/150/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Manipal Finance Corporation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU|ON THE 20 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH| AND| THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN. INCOME TAXK APPEAL NO.1L50 OF 20 BEIWEEN: | 1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R. BUILDING,ATTAVARA,MANGALORE.» 2 |THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1, UDURPL. ... APPELLANTS | (BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. MANIPAL FINANCE CORPORATIONMANIPAL HOUSE,MANLPAL. .., RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE, FOR | SRI S. PARTHASARATHI) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL [IS FILED UNDERSECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961,|PRAYING|TO.FORMULATETHE.SUBSTANTIALQUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ALLOW|THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY.THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE,|IN I.T.A. NO.542/BANG/2009 DATED 27-11-2009 AND.CONFIRMTHEORDER|OF|THE.APPELLATE|COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY.THE.DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER,OF|INCOME|TAX,CIRCLE-1, UDUPI. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FORHEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED|THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT By the order dated 10-11-2010, this appeal was|admitted to consider the following substantial questionsof law: | /.Whether the Appellate Authorities werecorrect in holding that the principalportion of the deposit and debentures|forfeited and cessation of bank liability|is a capital receipt in the hands of the|assessee and not liable to tax? inWhether the Appellate Authorities werecorrect in holding that the principalportion of the aeposit/aebentures takenby the company and subseguentlyforegone by tne depositor and cessationof bank liability does not constitute|income contrary to Section 28(iv) read|with Section 41 of the Act and thejudgments of the Apex Court in tne)case of Laksnmi Vilas Bank reported in|220 ITR 305 and In the case of T.V.|Sundaram Iyengar & Son Ltd. reportedIn ZZZ ITR 344?| 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitsthat the matter could be disposed of on a short issue.He submits tnat the Tribunal followed the earlier ordersin the case of the assessee as noted by it in paragraphNo.6 of its order. Aggrieved by the said order, theRevenue had filed I.T.A. Nos.794 and 795 of 2008. By.the order dated 7-10-2014, the appeals were held in|favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Against tne said order, a Special Leave Petition was|filed and leave being granted, the appeals were|dismissed on the ground of tne monetary limits.Therefore, ne pleads that the substantial questions of law are since covered by the order of this Court dated7-10-2014 passed in I.T.A. Nos.794 and 795 of 2008. 3In view of the submission made, the|substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by following tne|order dated 7-10-2014 passed in I.T.A. Nos.794 and/795 of 2008. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed off. SD/-JUDGE | SD/-|JUDGE kKVK