The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(5), Bangalore v. Jupitar Capital (P) Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-1110-31]

Citation 2020-LL-1110-31
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(5), Bangalore
Respondent Name Jupitar Capital (P) Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 10/11/2020
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags share application money • subsidiary company • return of income • interest paid


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.397 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: M/S. JUPITAR CAPITAL (P) LTD., NO.54, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADV. FOR SMT.SOUWMYA SRIDHAR, ADV.) --- THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 2 18/07/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.975/BANG/2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: I. FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN; II. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDERS PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.975/BANG/2011 DATED 18/07/2012 CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM ORDER PASSED BY ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 11(5), BANGALORE IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) has been preferred by revenue. subject matter of appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2007-08. appeal was admitted by Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.02.2013 on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether Tribunal was correct in setting aside and remitting issue to file of Assessing Officer to 3 reconsider in accordance with guidelines laid down by Bombay High Court in case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 328 ITR 81 without examining peculiar transactions taken place, which amounts to device and recorded perverse finding? 2. Whether Tribunal was correct in not recording finding that loan obtained from Bank, depositing same as share application money in subsidiary company and taking back same amount as inter- corporate deposit on same day and interest paid is disallowable u/s.14A of Act? 2. facts giving rise to filing of appeal briefly stated are that assessee is non banking financial institution. assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring total loss of Rs.44,00,286/-. Assessing Officer concluded 4 assessment by order dated 30.12.2009 and determined income of assessee at Rs.3,90,17,741/-. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, who by order dated 30.12.2009 partly allowed appeal preferred by assessee. Being aggrieved, revenue as well as assessee filed appeals for Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal , for short). Tribunal by common order dated 18.07.2012 remitted matter to Assessing Officer with direction to pass speaking order by bringing necessary materials on record for making disallowance as per law, after affording opportunity of hearing to assessee to put forth its case. assessee was also directed to co-operate with assessing officer in deciding aforesaid issue. Accordingly, appeals preferred by assessee as well as revenue were disposed of. Being aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 5 3. Learned counsel for revenue has raised singular contention that Tribunal while passing impugned order has directed Assessing Officer to decide issue in view of law laid down by Bombay High Court in case of M/S. GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. , 328 ITR 81 and there are several other judgments on issue, which have been remitted for consideration before Assessing Officer and order of Tribunal be modified and Assessing Officer be directed to decide issue remitted to him as per extant position of law. aforesaid submission has not been fairly opposed by learned counsel for assessee. 4. For aforementioned reasons, it is not necessary for us to deal with substantial questions of law framed by this Court. As agreed to by learned counsel for parties, order dated 18.07.2012 passed by Tribunal is modified and Assessing 6 Officer is directed to decide issue remitted to it in accordance with extant legal position. In result, appeal is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE dn/- CT-HR Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore / Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-11(5), Bangalore v. Jupitar Capital (P) Ltd
Report Error