1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI ITA NO. 481 OF 2014 BETWEEN: SYNDICATE BANK HEAD OFFICE, MANIPAL-576 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, MR.R.RAMALINGAM ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.SURYANARAYANA T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, CANARA TOWERS, MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD, UDUPI-576101. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN.J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2014 PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.709 & 998/BANG/2012 AND 681 & 955/BANG/2012 TO EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed by assessee. It was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2015 on following substantial question of law: 9.1 Whether on facts, in circumstances and on grounds and contentions urged, Tribunal was right in holding that amount deductible under Section 36(1) (viiia) of Act would have to be limited to amount actually provided for in books; 3 9.2 Whether on facts, in circumstances and on grounds and contentions urged: (a) Tribunal ought to have held that no disallowance was warranted under Section 14A of Act? (b) Tribunal was right in remitting issue of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D to Assessing Office for having at expenditure disallowable, even though there was no expenditure incurred by assessee in earning exempt income? (c) Tribunal ought to have held that own funds and non-interest bearing current account balances having exceeded value of investments giving rise to exempt income innumerable times, Rule 8D(2)(ii) had no application? 2. When matter is taken up today learned counsel for parties jointly submitted that substantial 4 question of law 9.1 is answered by this Court vide judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed in ITA No.258/2011. Accordingly, aforesaid substantial question of law is answered in terms of aforesaid judgment. 3. It is submitted that substantial question of law 9.2 (a), (b) and (c) are answered by judgment of this Court in ITA No.97/2010 vide judgment dated 17.01.2020. Accordingly, substantial questions of law are answered in favour of assessee. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE BVK Syndicate Bank v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangalore / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Udupi