201 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 195 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.01.2020 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT 2. ITA No. 220 of 2012 (O&M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT 3. ITA No. 257 of 2011 (O&M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT 4. ITA No. 271 of 2011 (O&M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT SHAM SUNDER 2020.01.24 12:28 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH -2- 5. ITA No. 259 of 2011 (O&M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT AND 6. ITA No. 258 of 2011 (O&M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-PATIALA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE BANK OF PATIALA RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Jitin Kohli, Jr. Standing Counsel for Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for appellant. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Parsad, Advocate for respondent. AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): By this common order, we shall dispose of afore-said appeals as same question of law is involved. For convenience facts are taken from ITA No. 195 of 2017. 2. By this appeal, appellant has challenged order dated 11.08.2016 passed in ITA No. 126/Chd/2009. SHAM SUNDER 2020.01.24 12:28 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH -3- 3. following substantial question of law is raised in present appeal: Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh is legally correct in upholding decision of CIT(A) regarding restricting addition of 22,52,08,661/- to 66,44,710/- made on account of apportionment of expenses against exempted income u/s 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that following appeals are covered in favour of assessee by decision of this Court rendered in ITA Nos. 64 and 66 of 2009, titled as Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. State Bank of Patiala, decided on 09.04.2019 as well as decision of Supreme Court. Learned counsel for appellant is not in position to deny this factual assertion. 5. Consequently appeals are dismissed. 6. Since main case has been dismissed, learned counsel for asseessee prays for withdrawal of cross-objection No. 89-CII of 2017 in ITA No. 195 of 2017. Allowed as prayed for. 7. Cross-objection is dismissed as withdrawn. [AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 23, 2020 sham 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAM SUNDER 2020.01.24 12:28 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. State Bank of Patiala