Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (2) TMI 466 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in concurring with the decision of CIT(A) regarding NRI Mobilization expenses?
2. Whether the Tribunal erred in concurring with the decision of CIT(A) regarding replacement of shares by the assessee to EMGF?

Analysis:

Issue 1: NRI Mobilization Expenses
The respondent, a bank, claimed &8377;4.36 crores under "NRI Deposit Mobilization" for the Assessment Year 2000-01. The Tribunal accepted the claim based on previous years' decisions and other references. The Revenue argued that Section 44C provisions were not applied by the Tribunal. However, the assessee's counsel pointed out that the Revenue did not challenge similar matters in earlier years, indicating acceptance. The Court noted the Revenue's conscious decision and did not entertain this question.

Issue 2: Replacement of Shares to EMGF
The respondent bank claimed a loss of &8377;3.50 crores due to a dispute involving shares of Zee Telefilms held by EMGF. The bank, as a mediator, faced a claim from Jas-One Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. regarding stolen shares. To maintain market reputation and client relations, the bank agreed to pay the loss. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, leading to Tribunal intervention. The Tribunal upheld the claim citing a Supreme Court decision and the bank's need to maintain dignity in the market. The Court noted that the bank was not legally obligated to make the payment but did so to uphold its reputation and business relations. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case, the Court allowed the expenditure as a business loss under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the tax appeal, emphasizing the bank's actions were in the interest of its business and to maintain goodwill with clients, thus justifying the allowed expenditure.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates