Ita/29/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Canara Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD LT.A. NO.29 OF J2O1/C/WwILT.A. NO.26 OF 2017 IN I.T.A. NO.29 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. 2.|THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. CANARA BANK,BSCA SECTION, FM &S WING,HO, NO.112, JC ROAD,|BENGALURU-560002. RESPONDENT| (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.) THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION J260-A OFI.T.ACT,.1961,ARISINGOUTOF|ORDER.DATED:30/03/2016PASSED|IN|LTA|NO.601/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2005-2006. IN LT.A. NCQ.26 OF 2ZO1 BETWEEN: 1.|THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,LTU, JSS TOWERS, LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK II] STAGE,BENGALURU-560085. BENGALURU-560085. D> |THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,LTU, JSS TOWERS, LTU, JSS TOWERS, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. CANARA BANK,BSCA SECTION, FM &S WING,HO, NO.112, JC ROAD,|BENGALURU-560002. RESPONDENT| (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV.)THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION J260-A OFI.T.ACT, 1961,ARISINGOUTOF|ORDER.DATED:30/03/2016.PASSEDIN|TTA|NO.530/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR2005-27006. THESEAPPEALS|COMING|ONFOR.FINAL|HEARING, THIS DAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED|THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT These appeals under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘theAct’, for snort) nave been preferred by the revenue. —The subject matter of these appeals pertain to theAssessment Year 2005-06. 2.|At the outset, when the matters were taken up, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that he is confining his submissions only in respect ofsubstantial question of law No.1 in ITA No.29/2017andsubstantialquestionoflawNo.2?In|TTA.No.26/201/7,whicharereproducedbelowrespectively:- 7anWhether on the facts and In thecircumstances|OF|theCase,theTripunal is right in law in_ settingaside the disallowance of expenditureof earning exempt income’ underSection[4A|oftheActDy erroneouslynolding—that|flodisallowanceIS.calledforUnderSection 14A of the Act by followingearlier order which has not reachedfinality even when all the ingredientsof Section 14A are satisfied in thecase of the assessee?’ — DD.Whether on the facts and In thecircumstancesOf|theCase,theTribunal is right in law in_ setting aside|thedisallowancesofdeprecation on HIM _ category oinvestments by erroneously holding that value of [Investments meadpursuant to SLR requirements of RBIcan be allowed as a deduction whilecomputing business income of abankingCOMmMmpPeCVeCthough|conversionofsecuritiesfromInvestmentsto.StockIn|Tradeattracts provision of Section 45(2)and also that the Bank had noworking regarding deprecated valueof assets and capital gains on sale ofsuch assets?’| 3.Learned counsel for the assessee submittedthat the first substantial question of law is covered bythe decision of this Court in ITA No.97/2010 andconnected matter dated 17.01.7020 and the secondsubstantial question of law is covered by the judgment.of this Court In"KARNATAKA BANK LTD. YV. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE 2(1)’, [2013] 34 TAXMANN.COM 150 (KARNATAKA). The aforesaid submission made by|learned counsel for the assessee could not be disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. aFor the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgments, the substantial questions of law framed inthese appeals are answered against the revenue and|in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. an/-CT-HR Sd/-'| JUDGE Sd/-. JUDGE|