Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-­2 v. ICICI Bank Ltd
[Citation -2019-LL-0729-43]

Citation 2019-LL-0729-43
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-­2
Respondent Name ICICI Bank Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/07/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags broken period interest • capital expenditure • depreciation of leased asset
Bot Summary: Mr. Suresh Kumar , advocate for appellant. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, advocate for respondent. P.C.: 1 Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance on account of depreciation of leased assets when the assets were not actually owned by the assessee and leased out, but the transaction was in the nature of finance only 2 It is noticed that the Revenue has raised an additional question which reads as under : Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance on account of broken period interest which was treated as capital expenditure by the AO in view of the decision Talwalkar ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 16:01:16 ::: 2 33.itxa536. 567.17.doc of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank 3 The learned Counsel for the Revenue fairly pointed out that similar question came up before this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2015 with Income Tax Appeal No. 515 of 2015. This question of law was not entertained holding that by virue of CIT v/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. rendered on 23rd July, 2017, the question is not considered.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 536 OF 2017 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2. Appellant. Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar , advocate for appellant. Ms. A. Vissanji i/b. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, advocate for respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2019. P.C.: 1 Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law. Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting disallowance on account of depreciation of leased assets when assets were not actually owned by assessee and leased out, but transaction was in nature of finance only ? 2 It is noticed that Revenue has raised additional question which reads as under : (a) Whether in facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in law in deleting disallowance on account of broken period interest which was treated as capital expenditure by AO in view of decision Talwalkar ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2019 16:01:16 ::: 2 33.itxa536.567.17.doc of Supreme Court in case of Vijaya Bank? 3 learned Counsel for Revenue fairly pointed out that similar question came up before this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 543 of 2015 with Income Tax Appeal No. 515 of 2015. This question of law was not entertained holding that by virue of CIT v/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 330 of 2012) rendered on 23rd July, 2017, question is not considered. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J.) Talwalkar Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2 v. ICICI Bank Ltd
Report Error