The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Banc Of America Securities
High Court
02 Apr 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Banc Of America Securities
Date of order
02 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Banc Of America Securities, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The Revenue is in appeal on the following question : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
(-1-)
hvn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2009
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Banc of America Securities
(I) Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala,Sr. Counsel with Mrs.V.B.
Patel for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: APRIL 02, 2009
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: APRIL 02, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The Revenue is in appeal on the following
question :
"Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case the Tribunal was
right in law in confirming the order of the
Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the interest u/s.
234C, without appreciating the fact that the
assessee was liable to pay advance tax on
the interest earned on the F.D.?"
. A few facts may be set out :
. The assessee was incorporated on 17.4.1995.
R.B.I. granted registration certificate on
(-2-)
11.9.2001 permitting the assessee as N.B.F.C. By
letter dated 1.11.2001 it was allowed to act as
primary dealer. It commenced his business
thereafter and filed return for assessment year
2002/2003.
. The contention of the Revenue is that the
assessee ought to have paid advance tax as on
15.6.2001. The learned tribunal referred to and
reproduced the order of C.I.T. (A) and affirmed the
same and consequently dismissed appeal.
. In our opinion, the argument advanced on behalf
of the Revenue is untenable. The fact is that the
assessee was registered as N.B.F.C. only on
11.9.2001. It was allowed to commence the business
as a primary dealer by letter dated 1.11.2001. The
question of paying advance tax, therefore, on
15.6.2001 would never arise and it was impossible of
being performed on that date. Considering the
above, in our opinion, no error could be found in
the order of C.I.T. and I.T.A.T. and consequently
appeal dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
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.