2020 (1) TMI 1473 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 36(1) - disallowance was warranted u/s 14A - HELD THAT - When the matter is taken up today learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that substantial question of law is answered by this Court M/S. SYNDICATE BANK 2020 (2) TMI 1020 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Accordingly, the aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 36(1)(viiia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.
3. Computation of disallowance under Rule 8D.
4. Applicability of Rule 8D(2)(ii) in certain circumstances.

Analysis:
1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the assessee, raising the issue of whether the amount deductible under Section 36(1)(viiia) should be limited to the amount actually provided for in the books. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, and the Court referred to a previous judgment in ITA No.258/2011, where a similar substantial question of law was addressed. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee based on the previous judgment, thereby answering the question in terms of the earlier decision.

2. The next issue pertained to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The Court referred to another judgment in ITA No.97/2010, where the substantial questions of law 9.2 (a), (b), and (c) were addressed. The Court found in favor of the assessee based on the judgment in ITA No.97/2010, thereby resolving the issues related to disallowance under Section 14A in favor of the assessee.

3. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision to remit the issue of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D to the Assessing Officer was discussed. It was noted that there was no expenditure incurred by the assessee in earning the exempt income. The Court considered the applicability of Rule 8D in this context and found that the Tribunal's decision was not justified in light of the circumstances. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, disposing of the appeal accordingly.

4. Lastly, the Court addressed the issue of the applicability of Rule 8D(2)(ii) in a situation where own funds and non-interest bearing current account balances exceeded the value of investments giving rise to exempt income multiple times. The Court held that Rule 8D(2)(ii) had no application in such circumstances, further supporting the assessee's position. The judgment favored the assessee on this aspect as well, leading to the disposal of the appeal in favor of the assessee.