The Order Passed By This Court In Ita v. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax [2018] 95 Taxmann.com 41 (Karnataka). Therefore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2023 BETWEEN: (BY SRI. BALARAM .R RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, PRAYING TO (1) DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HONBLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25/05/2022 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE, AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 495/BANG/2020 FOR A.Y 2016-2017 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘ITAT’) dated 25.05.2022 in ITA No.495/Bang/2020, whereby the ITAT has partly allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The memorandum of appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature in holding that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration ignoring that Section 14A do not stipulate such restriction and The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No.5/2014, dated 11 February 2014 has clarified that Rule 8D of the Rules read with Section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of expenditure even where taxpayer has not earned any exempt income in a particular year?” 3. Mr.Balaram R Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee states that, the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, most particularly, in view of the order passed by this Court in ITA No.613/2023, decided on 23.09.2024, in the case of the assessee, it self. 4. Mr.Sanmathi and Mr.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-revenue are not in a position to dispute the aforesaid submission of Mr.Balaram R Rao. 5. The order passed by this Court in ITA No.613/2023 dated 23.09.2024, paragraphs Nos.3 to 5 reads as under: “ 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is answered against the Revenue in PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 41 (KARNATAKA). Therefore, he submits that the appeal needs to be rejected at the stage of admission itself. 4. Learned Sri.E.I.Sanmathi., appearing for the appellants/Revenue is not a position to dispute the same. 5. In view of the above, appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission answering the substantial question of law against the appellants/Revenue and in favour of the respondent/assessee.” 6. For parity of reasons, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission answering substantial questions of law against the appellants-revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee. 7. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE