1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.388 OF 2011 BETWEEN 1. COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX-LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(5), C.R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. APPELLANTS (BY SRI DILIP, ADV. FOR K V ARAVIND, ADV.) AND M/S VIJAYA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, 41/2, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.SURYANARAYANA, ADV. FOR SRI BALRAM R RAO, ADV.) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17/06/2011 PASSED IN ITA NO.340/BANG/2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.340/BANG/2009 DATED 17/06/2011 AND CONFIRM ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(5), BANGALORE, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.Dilip, learned counsel for Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for revenue. Mr.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for Mr.Balaram R.Rao, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been filed by revenue which was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.05.2012 on following substantial questions of law: 3 (1) Whether tribunal was correct in holding that interest income earned from deposits made by assessee with share application money is not liable for tax under head income from other sources when interest earned was revenue nature without applying law laid down by Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Vs. CIT 227 ITR 172? (2) Whether tribunal was correct in holding that interest income earned from deposits is liable to be setoff against expenses incurred towards public issue when interest earned is revenue nature and expenditure claimed is capital nature contrary to law laid down by Apex Court in case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Vs. CIT 227 ITR 172? 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for revenue fairly submitted that he does not intend to press first substantial question of law as same does not arise in fact situation of 4 case. Further, it is fairly submitted that second substantial question of law is answered against revenue by Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, AHMEDABAD Vs. SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD. [(2018) 92 TAXMANN.COM 363 (SC)]. 4. In view of aforesaid submission and in view of aforesaid enunciation of law, second substantial question of law is answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. In result, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV Commissioner of Income-tax-LTU, Bangalore / Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle-12(5), Bangalore v. Vijaya Bank