Itxa/4164/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Atax,Mumbai,City- Iii v. The Dindustrial Credit And Invst.corpn. Of India Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.357 OF 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.357 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Appellant. V/s. The Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.N.Kotangale for appellant. Mrs.Aarti Vissanji with Mr.S.J.Mehta for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- Appeal taken up on board. Heard Mr. Kotangale in support of motion. Mrs.Vissanji appears for respondent. Appeal raises following questions of law:- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of the expenses incidental to the dividend income which was claimed on as exempted u/s.80M of the Act ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is juswtified in allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of the long term capital loss ? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the - = : 2 : = - assessee in respect of deduction claimed u/s.32AB of the Act ? 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of interest for the broken period in connection with the purchased of RBI securities ? 5) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee in respect of the addition on account of the interest accrued on sticky loans ? 2. Ouf ot these five quedtions, the second question is not being pressed by the revenue. The other four questions are covered by the Judgments in favour of the assessee. The said fact is not disputed by the revenue. 3. So far as the first question is concerned, it is covered by the judgment in the case of C.I.T. C.I.T.V/s. General Insurance Corporation of India reported254 I.T.R. 203. V/s. General Insurance Corporation of India in 254 I.T.R. 203 4. The third question regarding deduction claimed under section 32AB is decided in favour ofthe assessee by the Division Bench of order in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.255 of 2003 decided on 1st August, 2006 in the case of C.I.T. V/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. 5. The fourth question in respect of interest - = : 3 : = - of broken period is also decided in favour of the American Express International assessee in case of American Express International Banking Corporation V/s. C.I.T. 258 I.T.R. 601 andthe last question of addition on account of theC.I.T. V/s. ICICI Ltd.189 I.T.R. 126. This being the position, Banking Corporation V/s. C.I.T. 258 I.T.R. 601 and the interest accured isalso decided in favour of the assessee in the case of C.I.T. V/s. ICICI Ltd. reported in 189 I.T.R. 126 there is no reason for entertain this appeal. 6. Appeal is dismissed. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)