Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Vijaya Bank on 15 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
I.T.A. NO.16 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
LTU,
JSS TOWERS,
BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560085.
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
LTU,
JSS TOWERS,
BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560085.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S VIJAYA BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT
41/2, M.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
PAN: AAACV 4791J
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED
22.07.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.331/Bang/2014, FOR THE
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 PRAYING TO (1) FORMULATE
THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE
(2) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED
BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.331/Bang/2014 DATED
22.07.2016 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE
COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BENGALURU AND
ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.
Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the
assessee.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 has been filed by the revenue. The subject
matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year
2009-10. The appeal was admitted by the Bench of this
Court vide order dated 02.01.2018 on the following
substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside
the Disallowance made under section 14(A) of the
Act for sum of Rs.2,54,00,000/- by relying upon its
earlier order which has not reached finality even
though all the ingredients of Section 14A are
satisfied in the case of assessee to attract such a
disallowance?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside
the disallowance of valuation of loss on HTM
Securities amounting to Rs.151,48,15,234 by
relying upon earlier order which has not reached
finality and even when the said loss cannot be
considered as Revenue Loss?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside
the disallowance of Mark to Market Loss on
Derivatives of Rs.111,89,71,243 by relying upon
the decision on Mumbai Bench in the case of
Edelweiss Capital Ltd vs. ITO (reported in
8Taxmann.com 157 (Mum) 2010) even though the
assessing authority has rightly disallowed the same
considering the treatment of HTM Categories as
investments or Stock in trades which decided the
allowability of this expenditure?"
2. The learned counsel for the assessee submits
that the substantial question of law No.1 involved in this
appeal has already been answered against the revenue by
a decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment
Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi,
[(2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)].
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
the assessee that the substantial questions of law
Nos.2 and 3 do not arise for consideration in this appeal as
they have already been answered in the judgment dated
14.12.2020 passed by this Court in I.T.A.No.15/2012. The
aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned
counsel for the revenue.
4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, New Delhi in [(2018) 91 taxmann.com 154
(SC)] and the judgment of this Court in I.T.A.No.15/2012
dated 14.12.2020, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
