9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 455 - HC - Income TaxBroken period interest allowability - Held that - In the case of the same assessee, for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06, the same issue was dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The Division Bench answered the same question against the appellant by relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. C.I.T. 2002 (9) TMI 96 - BOMBAY High Court .
Issues:
1. Allowability of broken period interest as a deduction for assessment year 2009-10. Analysis: The main issue in this case revolves around the allowability of broken period interest as a deduction for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant raised a substantial question of law challenging the correctness of the ITAT's decision in allowing broken period interest as a deduction. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Vijaya Bank and the Rajasthan High Court decision in Bank of Rajasthan to support their argument against the allowance of broken period interest. The High Court, in its judgment, referred to a previous case involving the same assessee for assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06. In that case, the Division Bench had ruled against the appellant on the same issue by relying on the decision in American Express International Banking Corpn. v. CIT. The Division Bench's decision was further supported by the Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in C.I.T. v. Citi Bank N.A. The High Court concluded that since the view taken in the American Express International Banking Corpn. case had been approved by the Apex Court, there was no merit in the appellant's appeal. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arises in this matter. In summary, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to allow broken period interest as a deduction for the assessment year 2009-10 based on the precedents set by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court in similar cases involving the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents and how they influence the interpretation and application of tax laws in such cases.
|
