9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 383 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - Whether no disallowance is called for u/s 14A of the Act by following earlier order which has not reached finality even when all the ingredients of Section 14-A are satisfied in the case of Assessee? - HELD THAT - As per case M/S. SYNDICATE BANK 2020 (1) TMI 1141 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT assessee had admittedly not incurred any expenditure. This case pertains to income on dividend, which by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be an expenditure to attract the provisions of section 14A. In view of the ruling of the co-ordinate bench as aforesaid, following the law enunciated in the case of Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT as well as Maxop Investments Ltd 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT we have no reasons to differ from the same. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Addition made of realization of assets of erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank - Whether the excess of liabilities over assets is not allowed as deduction any subsequent realization out of assets should not be bought to tax by following its earlier orders even when excess of liabilities over assets was not allowed as deduction the question of taxing the realization out of assets of LCB does not arise? - HELD THAT - It is well settled by law that if the disallowance is made at the time of merger of the LCB with the assesseebank during the assessment year 1988-1989, the assessee was entitled to deduction claimed in the assessment year in question. In other words, no addition could be made in the assessment year in question, if such disallowance of loss has attained finality relating to the assessment year 1988- 1989. Thus, this matter requires re-consideration by the Assessing Officer, in as much as the finality of the matter, which was said to have been pending before this Hon'ble Court on this issue relating to assessment year 1988-1989. Hence, it is appropriate for this Court to set-aside the order impugned and to restore the file to the Assessing Officer to re-examine whether the loss suffered by the assessee was disallowed in the assessment year 1988-1989 and if found in the affirmative, no addition could be made in the assessment order under consideration or in other words, it is the other way if the loss suffered by the assessee has been allowed in the year 1988-1989, addition shall be made in accordance with law. Deprecation on assets leased - HELD THAT - As decided in CANARA BANK 2016 (4) TMI 429 - ITAT BANGALORE the finding of the fact decided by the Tribunal cannot be interfered in exercise of the powers under Section 260-A of the Act and accordingly, answered the identical substantial question of law framed, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The co-ordinate bench has observed that, based on the material evidence, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that the transaction of the assessee with the Companies, M/s. Rajender Steels and M/s. Kedia Group of Companies were genuine and the assets which were leased out were in existence and the assessee - Canara bank was entitled to depreciation. This finding of fact could not be interfered with. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenditure of earning exempt income under Sec.14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on HTM category of investments. 3. Addition made in respect of realization of assets of erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank. 4. Allowing depreciation on assets leased to M/s. Rajinder Steel and M/s. Kedia Group of Companies. 5. Applicability of Section 115JB to banking companies. 6. Treatment of investments shown as Stock in Trade in books of account. 7. Addition to book profits under Section 115JB towards expenditure on exempt income. Analysis: 1. The High Court considered the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court focused on the substantial questions of law raised, particularly regarding the disallowance of expenditure of earning exempt income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Court referred to previous judgments and held that no deduction should be allowed for expenditure incurred in relation to income that does not form part of the total income. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee based on established legal principles. 2. The Court also addressed the issue of disallowance of depreciation on HTM category of investments. It examined the merger of Lakshmi Commercial Bank with the assessee-Bank and the subsequent realization of assets. The Court emphasized the need for proper evidence and directed the matter to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer to determine the finality of the loss disallowance. The Court highlighted the importance of assessing the loss in the relevant assessment year before making any additions. 3. Regarding the allowance of depreciation on assets leased to specific companies, the Court relied on previous judgments and upheld the findings of the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that findings of fact decided by the Tribunal should not be interfered with under Section 260-A of the Act. The Court concluded in favor of the assessee based on the material evidence presented. 4. The Court also addressed the applicability of Section 115JB to banking companies and the treatment of investments shown as Stock in Trade in the books of account. The Court provided a detailed analysis based on relevant legal provisions and circulars, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved. 5. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the appeal based on the detailed analysis provided for each substantial question of law raised. The judgment reflected a thorough examination of the legal issues and a clear application of established legal principles to the specific facts of the case.
|
