Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-2 v. M/S. Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)-2..Appellant Versus M/s. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd..Respondent ................... Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Niraj Sheth i/by Kanga &Co for the Respondent Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Niraj Sheth i/by Kanga &Co for the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : MARCH 4, 2019. P.C.: 1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). Following question is presented for our consideration:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal erred in concurring with the decision ofCIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the AssessingOfficer on NRI Mobilization expenses of Rs. 4,31,98,998/- onthe basis of decision of this Court in case of EmiratesCommercial Bank Ltd, 262 ITR 55 ignoring that the facts of thatcase were entirely different from the present case, which havebeen ignored while deciding the issue. The Tribunal failed tofollow the ratio in case of CIT Vs. Jansamparak Advertising & Marketing Pvt Ltd 56 taxmann.com 286 (Dehi) dated11.3.2015?" 2.Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that similarissue has come up before this Court in the case of this veryassessee in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1560 of 2016 and 1561of 2016. Both these petitions were dismissed by twoseparate orders dated 6.2.2019. Hence, this question,therefore, does not arise. The appeal is dismissed. [ M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]