TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue 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. - I.T.A.NO. 33 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2021 - HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI Appellants (By Sri. Aravind K.V, Advocate) Respondent (By Sri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate) JUDGMENT S.SUJATHA J., This app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of realization of assets of erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank by erroneously holding that, when 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? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside in allowing deprecation on assets leased to M/s. Rajinder Steel and M/s. Kedia Group of Companies by following earlier orders which has not reached finality even when the assessee is not entitled for deprecation on assets l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isallowed the same under provisions of Section 14A of the Act?. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue would submit that this appeal would be confined only to the substantial questions of law Nos.1, 3 and 4 and other substantial questions of law are not relevant in the present appeal. 4. The assessee is a banking company. The Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer denying the allowances claimed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), which came to be partly allowed. As such, both revenue and assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee, rejecting the revenue's appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be an expenditure to attract the provisions of section 14A of the Act. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the first substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue . 6. In view of the ruling of the co-ordinate bench as aforesaid, following the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Walfort Share and Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. as well as Maxop Investments Ltd., 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. 7. With regard to substantial question No.3, the Tribunal has obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 9. With regard to substantial question of law No.4 - the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of T he Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. M/s. Canara Bank in ITA.No.332/2016 dated 02.11.2020, wherein the co-ordinate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
