Director of Income-tax (IT)-I v. American Express Bank Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0401-47]

Citation 2015-LL-0401-47
Appellant Name Director of Income-tax (IT)-I
Respondent Name American Express Bank Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 01/04/2015
Assessment Year 1997-98
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags allowability of expenditure • expenditure incurred • composite business • chargeable to tax • interest income • gross basis • dividend
Bot Summary: There were two Income Tax Appeals before the Tribunal, one by the Revenue and the other by the assessee. Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing for the Revenue submits that the substantial questions of law are formulated at page 5 of the paper book. A Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue following the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd., 262 ITR 55. It has found that the assessee in the instant case is carrying on composite business earning incomes which are either not at all chargeable to tax or chargeable to tax at lower rate or chargeable to tax at regular rate. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 242 ITR 450 has been followed by the Tribunal. We do not find that such a course can raise any substantial question of law. As far as the third question is concerned, both sides fairly state that the same does not arise out of the order of the Assessing Officer SRP 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 09:41:03 ::: ITXA1294.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1294 OF 2013 Director of Income Tax (IT)-I ... Appellant Vs M/s. American Express Bank Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, senior counsel with Mr. Nishant Thakkar i/b PDS Legal for Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & A.K. MENON, JJ. WEDNESDAY, 1ST APRIL, 2015 P.C. : 1. This appeal of Revenue challenges order dated 8th August, 2012, passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. There were two Income Tax Appeals before Tribunal, one by Revenue and other by assessee. assessment year was 1997-98. SRP 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 09:41:03 ::: ITXA1294.13.doc 2. Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing for Revenue submits that substantial questions of law are formulated at page 5 of paper book. 3. However, he fairly states that in case of this very assessee and identical question as Question No.1 was dealt with by this Court in Income Tax Appeals (Lodg) Nos.775, 776, 780 of 2011 and Income Tax Appeal No.1867 of 2011. Division Bench of this Court has dismissed appeal of Revenue following judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd., 262 ITR 55. 4. He, therefore, submits that Question No.1 can safely be held to be covered against Revenue. 5. However, he would submit that Question No.2 is substantial question of law. In relation to that we find that income chargeable at special rate under section 115A ought to be on gross basis and not on net basis did not really arise from assessment or assessment SRP 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 09:41:03 ::: ITXA1294.13.doc order. In that regard we find that Tribunal in its order particularly at page 102 onwards has found that said question and pertaining to allowability of expenditure incurred in respect of earning dividend and interest income liable to tax at special rate under section 115A was, in any event, covered and against Revenue. Tribunal found that ground which has been raised by Revenue is academic. Why it has been termed as academic is discussed in paragraph 6 of Tribunal's order. It has found that assessee in instant case is carrying on composite business earning incomes which are either not at all chargeable to tax or chargeable to tax at lower rate or chargeable to tax at regular rate. Section 14A has been referred by Tribunal in that regard. judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 242 ITR 450 has been followed by Tribunal. We do not find that such course can, therefore, raise any substantial question of law. 6. As far as third question is concerned, both sides fairly state that same does not arise out of order of Assessing Officer SRP 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 02/07/2020 09:41:03 ::: ITXA1294.13.doc or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In present circumstances, therefore, that question need not be determined. It would be open for Revenue to raise it in appropriate case. 7. Thus, we dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs. A.K. MENON, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI , J. Director of Income-tax (IT)-I v. American Express Bank Ltd
Report Error