Ita/812/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd

IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATBD THIS THE 19[th]DAY OF JANUARY 2015 PRESENT THER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMARAN 1 THER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VBEBRAPP I.T.A. NO.812/2009 BETWEEN: 1.|The CommissionerOf Income-tax,C.R.Building, Of Income-tax,C.R.Building, Attavara, Mangalore. oD The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ...APPELLANTS. (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND :. M/s.Manipal FinanceCorporation Ltd.,Manipal House, Manipal — 576 104. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.S.Parthasarathy & smt.Jinita Chatterjee, Advs.) -9O-. This I.T.A. is filed under Section ZJ6O0OA oft Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated07.08.2009 passed in ITA No.298/BNG/2009, for theAssessment Year 2005-2006, praying to: 5$6formulate the substantial questions of lawstated therein, ©stated therein, © 5$$6Allow the appeal and set-aside the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bangalore in I.T.A. No.298/BNG/2009, dated07.08.2009 confirming the order of theAppellate Commissioner and confirm theorder passed by the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-1, Udupi in the interest ofjustice and equity.passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Bangalore in I.T.A. No.298/BNG/2009, dated07.08.2009 confirming the order of theAppellate Commissioner and confirm theorder passed by the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Circle-1, Udupi in the interest ofjustice and equity. This I.T.A. coming on_ forhearing,this day,N.Kumar J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT The Revenue has preferred this appeal against theorder passed by the Tribunal holding that Section 41(1)of the Income Tax Act would get attracted only when there is an amount that is charged to the profit and loss"account reducing the tax liability of any of the earlieryears. -3-. 2 |The appeal was admitted to consider the followingsubstantial question of law: WhethertheAppellateAuthoritiesLwerecorrectin|holding|thataSUTTof|Rs.64,16,000/- with the depositors and thedebenture holders was written back and aisum of Rs.78,17,000/- borrowings from threebanks viz., Karnataka Bank, CorporationBank and UCO Bank, were settled and theBank liability ceased is not a revenue receiptas held by the Assessing Officer? 3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. |The said question of law arose for consideration beforethis Court in the assessee’s case in I.T.A. Nos.7795/2008 and 794/2008 decided on [th]October, 2014. |After taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court onthe point, the substantial question of law was answeredin favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. © - 4 _| 4Accordingly, the substantial question of law isanswered in favour of the assessee and against therevenue. Appeal isdismissed Sd/-| JUDGE| Sd/-. JUDGE| SPS