Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay City-Iii, Mumbai v. The Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 102 OF 1998 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-III, Mumbai Vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. ..Applicant ..Respondent .... Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.None for Respondent. .... P.C.: CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATED : 6 FEBRUARY 2015 1.This reference is at the instance of Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment Years involved are Assessment Years 1975-76 to 1986-87 except 1980-81. 2.The following question has been referred to us for our opinion: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) deleting the disallowance of rediscounting charges paid to the I.D.B.I.?” 40.ITR.102.98.sxw 3.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Revenue fairly states that the question referred to this Court stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Bank of Maharashtra in 264 ITR 568 and the decision of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. Canara Bank in 293 ITR 115 in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly we answer the question in affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the Revenue. 4.Accordingly,theReferenceisdisposed of. No order as to costs. [G.S. KULKARNI, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]