THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX vs. BANK OF AMERICA NT and SA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that both the learned counsel for the petitioner (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee) stated that the issue involved in the applications was squarely covered by the judgment of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Bank of Maharashtra, reported in 264 I.T.R. 568. This precedent was stated to be in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of this consensus that the matter was covered by the existing High Court judgment, the Court discharged the Rule. The operative direction was to dispose of all the applications in terms of the cited precedent.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed applications before the Bombay High Court challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision. The ITAT had upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of rediscounting charges. The assessee is Bank of America NT & SA. The assessment years involved are 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1983-84. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the ITAT was correct in holding that at the time of rediscounting bills, there was an overriding title of IDBI, justifying the deletion of the addition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of rediscounting charges, holding that at the time of rediscounting the bills there was an overriding title of IDBI? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the issue was squarely covered by the High Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Bank of Maharashtra, reported in 264 I.T.R. 568, which was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not record any specific contention in the judgment, but their participation as petitioner indicates disagreement with the ITAT's order. The judgment states that both parties agreed the issue was covered by the cited precedent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.115 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.115 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.115 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.116 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.116 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.116 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.117 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.117 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.117 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.118 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.118 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.118 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.119 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.119 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.119 OF 1999 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.120 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.120 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.120 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income tax ..Petitioner. V/s. Bank of America NT & SA ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan with A. Kotangale for petitioner in all the applications. Mr.Percy Pardiwala i/b. M/s.Matubhai Janietram for respondent in all the applications. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2007.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The above applications were admitted on the following question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law upholding the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition on account of rediscounting charges holding that at the CNR No : HCBM020027301999 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:56:03
- = : 2 : = - time of rediscounting the bills there was an over riding titles of IDBI ? " 2. The above applications pertain to the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 respectively. 3. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent state that the issue involved in the above applications is squarely covered by the Judgment of our Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Commissioner of Income-tax Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Bank of Maharashtra V/s. Bank of Maharashtra V/s. Bank of Maharashtra reported in 264 I.T.R. 568 264 I.T.R. 568 264 I.T.R. 568 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. In view thereof, Rule stands discharged. 5. All the applications are disposed of. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:56:03
- = : 3 : = -
Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:56:03 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
