Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -14 v. Il & Fs Financial Services Ltd

S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -14..Appellant Versus IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. ..Respondent ................. Mr.Suresh Kumar a/w. Ms. Sumandevi Yadav for Appellant.Mr.Sameer Dalal for Respondent. ….............. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : MARCH 3, 2020. P.C. : 1.Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel,revenue for the appellant and Mr.Sameer Dalal, learnedcounsel for the respondent-assessee. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"for short) against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, "I" Bench, Mumbai (“Tribunal"for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 6498/Mum/2014 for theAssessment Year 2010-11. 3.The appeal has been preferred proposing thefollowing questions as substantial questions of law : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case andin law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that when the net worth as on 31.03.2010 is in excess of the investment made yielding the exempt income, disallowance u/s. 14A r/w.r.8D is not requiredto be made ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case andin law, the Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on the Judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 when on facts it is distinguishable ? 4.On going through the order passed by theTribunal, we fnd that the Tribunal has afrmed the order ofthe First Appellate Authority and in addition relied upon theaforesaid decision of the Court. Further, we fnd that theissue raised is squarely covered by the decision of this Courtin the case of CIT v/s.Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., [2009]178 Taxman 135 (Bombay). 5.After hearing learned counsel for the parties andon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not fndany error or infrmity in the view taken by it. 6.Consequently, we fnd no merit in the appeal. Appeal isaccordingly, dismissed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ]