The Director Of Income Tax(International Taxation v. M/S. Deutsche Bank Ag
High Court
20 Nov 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Director Of Income Tax(International Taxation v. M/S. Deutsche Bank Ag
Date of order
20 Nov 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Director Of Income Tax(International Taxation v. M/S. Deutsche Bank Ag, the High Court (2012) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
ASN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.233 OF 2011
The Director of Income Tax(International Taxation).
v.
M/s. Deutsche Bank AG.
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. P.J.Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. D.Damodar i/by Kanga & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 20[th] November, 2012
PC:
The question of law raised by the revenue reads thus:
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in directing the AO to allow the entire head office expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the allowability of head office expenditure is governed by the provisions of section 44C of the said Act and accordingly the said head office expenditure is to be allowed to the assessee at 5% of the adjusted total income as per provisions of section 44C of the Act?
2)The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Court in Assessee's own case reported in (2006) 284 ITR 463 (Bom.). Moreover, the SLP filed by the revenue against the aforesaid decision of this Court reported in (2006) 284 ITR 463 has been dismissed by the Apex Court on 26/8/2008.
3)In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
In this view of the matter, we see no reason to
(M.S.SANKELCHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.