In American Express Bank Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Taxmumbai City I, Mumbai, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in disallowing a sum of Rs.21,94,91,333/- whilst computing theAppellant’s income?
Decision: 8.Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2002WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2002
American Express Bank Ltd.: Appellant
v/s
Commissioner of Income TaxMumbai City I, Mumbai: Respondent
Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla a/w Mr. N. Doshi i/b CRBayley & co.Advocate for AppellantMr. Parag Vyas a/w R.A. Vaishampayan Advocate forrespondent
Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
S.J. Kathawalla, JJ.Date : 21.8.2008
P.C.1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2.The above Income Tax Appeal no. 709/2002 was
admitted by the order dt. 7.9.2004 on the followingsubstantial questions of law.
1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasjustified in disallowing a sum of Rs.21,94,91,333/- whilst computing theAppellant’s income?
3.
1988-89.
Above appeal pertains to assessment year
4.Income Tax appeal 710/2002 was admitted by the
order dt. 7.9.2004 on the following substantial
questions of law.
answer second question in law in negative in favour of
the assessee and against the revenue.
8.Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.