Case LawHigh Court › American Express Bank v. Addl.commission...

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan