M/S.canara Bank v. Assistant Commissioner Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF MARCH 2014 PRESENT. THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO.832/2007 BBRHIWEE 1. The Commissioner ot Income-TaxCentral Circle, C.R Building,Queens Road,Bangalore. .. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.Circle -11 (2), C.R Building, Queens Road,Bangalore.... Appellants. (By Sri.K.V.Aravind, Advocate) ANT) Canara BankBSCA SectionHead Office-112,J.C.RoadBangalore — 560 O02.... Respondent (By Sri.K.S.Ramabhadran, Advocate) This I.T.A filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 31-95-2007passed in ITA.No.25/Bang/2004 for the AssessmentYear 2001-2002, praying that this Hon'ble Court may bepleased to: 1formulate the substantial questions of lawstated therein.stated therein. ll.allow the appeal and set aside the order|passedby theIncomeTax|AppellateTribunal, Bangalore|1n ITANo.29/Bang/2004 dated 31-05-2007 confirmingthe order of the Appellate Commissioner &confirm the order passed by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2),Bangalore, in the interest of justice andequity.passedby theIncomeTax|AppellateTribunal, Bangalore|1n ITANo.29/Bang/2004 dated 31-05-2007 confirmingthe order of the Appellate Commissioner &confirm the order passed by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2),Bangalore, in the interest of justice andequity. This appeal coming on for Hearing this day,DILIPB. BHOSALE J.,delivered the following: P.C. Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, at the outset, invited our attention to the.judgment of this court dated 12[th]November 2013 in| M/s.Canara Bank V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax| in ITA No.1397/2006 and connectedappeals and submitted that the substantial question of law framed in the said judgment and the substantialquestion of law that arise for consideration in thepresent appeal is identical. In short, he submits thatthe substantial question of law in the present appeal issquarely covered by the said judgment and the samedeserves to be answered in favour of the assessee and|against the Revenue. 2.|The substantial question of law that fell forconsideration of this Court in ITA No.1397/2006 readsthus: Whether the Tribunal was Justified inupholding the estimation of expenditure at 2%|on the gross dividends to arrive at net|dividends for granting exemption u/s.10(33)|of the Act in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of ‘MAHARASHTRA|APEX|CORPORATIONLIMITEDDS,CIT’|reported in 286 ITR 585 (KAR)?| 3.|Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem thatthe substantial question of law that arise for ourconsideration in the present appeal is identical. In thecircumstances, we dispose of this appeal in terms of thesaid judgment, answering the substantial question oflaw in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. | Sd/-| JUDGE Sd/-. JUDGE| “x mpk/