Itxa/1545/2017 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. Dish Tv India Ltd

Sonali Kilaje 2-ITXA-1545-17.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1545 OF 2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax –16..Appellant v/s. Dish TV India Ltd...Respondent ………. Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w. Prabhakar Ranshur and SakshiAundhekar for the Appellant. Mr. Jay Nilesh Bhansali for the Respondent. ………. CORAM: UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2020 P. C :- 1.Heard Mr. Kotangle, learned standing counselrevenue for the appellant and Mr. Bhansali, learned counselfor the respondent-assessee. 2-ITXA-1545-17.doc 2. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) has been preferred by therevenue against the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai(“Tribunal”for short) in Income Tax Appeal No.2067/Mum/2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 3.Though 4 questions were formulated by theappellant as substantial questions of law, Mr.Kotanglesubmits that the following questions correctly refect thecontroversy in question : (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, Tribunal is justifed in deleting thedisallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 ignoring the fact that investments in groupcompanies will also yield exempt income which willattract disallowance under Section 14A of the Act readwith Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ? Sonali Kilaje 2-ITXA-1545-17.doc (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal is justifed in deleting thedisallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act,1961 without appreciating that it is not the object forwhich the investment was made, but the quality ofincome, tax-exempt or otherwise, that arises from theinvestment, needs to be considered for the purpose ofsection 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4.On a query by the Court Mr.Kotangle, learnedcounsel for the appellant submits that the above twoquestions have been decided by the Supreme Court againstthe revenue and in favour of the assessee in CIT v/s. EssarTeleholdings Ltd., 401 ITR 445. That apart, on identicalissue Delhi High Court upheld the order passed by Tribunalthat in the absence of any exempt income, disallowanceunder Section 14-A of the Act was not permissible. ASpecial Leave Petition fled by the revenue against the saiddecision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court inPrincipal Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s. Oil Industry Development Board [2019] 103 taxmann.com 326(SC). 5.In view of above, we fnd no merit in the appeal.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. However, there shall beno order as to costs. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)