Case Law › High Court › Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. The Deputy Co...

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – Circle

High Court 22 Feb 2018 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

22 Feb 2018

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – Circle, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

jsn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 200 OF 2017INWRIT PETITION NO. 1081 OF 2016 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – Circle … Petitioner …Respondents NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 202 OF 2017INWRIT PETITION NO. 1075 OF 2016 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – Circle … Petitioner…Respondents NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 205 OF 2017INWRIT PETITION NO. 1088 OF 2016 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.… PetitionerVersusThe Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – …RespondentsCircle NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 206 OF 2017 INWRIT PETITION NO. 1076 OF 2016 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.… Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – …RespondentsCircle Ms. Namita Shirke, i/b Charanjeet Chanderpal for the Applicant / Petitioner. Mr. Atul Jasani, for the Respondents. PC:- CORAM:M.S.SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.DATED:22ND FEBRUARY 2018 1.Ms. Namita Shirke, the learned counsel appearing in support of these Notices of Motion on instructions seeks to withdraw these Notices of Motion. 2.All the Notices of Motion are dismissed as withdrawn. ( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.