American Express Bank v. Addl.commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
18 Jan 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
American Express Bank v. Addl.commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
18 Jan 2005
Assessment year(s)
1988-89
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In American Express Bank v. Addl.commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.41 OF 2001
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.41 OF 2001
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.41 OF 2001
American Express Bank .. Appellant
V/s
Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax,
Special Range -32 .. Respondent
Mr.P.J.Pardiwala i/by M/s.Mulla & Mulla for the
Appellant.
Mr.R.V.Desai with Ms.S.V.Bharucha for the Respondent.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 18.01.2005.
DATE : 18.01.2005.
DATE : 18.01.2005.
P.C.:
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Two
questions have been referred to us for our opinion under
Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act at the instance of
the Assessee for Assessment Year 1988-89.
Questions :
Questions :
(a) Whether expenditure incurred by the head office
exclusively for the operations carried out in India
is subject to the restrictive provisions of Section
44C?
(b) Whether in allocating expenditure that is to be
considered under section 20 in computing the
deductions from interest on securities, would the
restrictive provisions of Section 44C be applicable?
2. So far as aforesaid Question No.(a) is concerned, in
view of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Emirates Commercial Bank
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Emirates Commercial BankLimited reported in 262 ITR 55, the said question is
Limited reported in 262 ITR 55,
answered in the negative i.e.in favour of the Assessee
and against the Department.
3. So far as aforesaid Question No.(b) is concerned, in
view of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Citybank N.A.V/s.Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in262 ITR 47, the said question is answered in the
Citybank N.A.V/s.Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in
262 ITR 47,
negative i.e.in favour of the Assessee and against the
Department.
4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as
to costs.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR,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.