THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. HDFC BANK LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/335/2012HC Bombay23 July 2014Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is identical to question 'A' in Income Tax Appeal No. 330 of 2012, which the Court had decided on the same day. For the reasons stated in the judgment of Income Tax Appeal No. 330 of 2012, the High Court was of the view that this appeal also does not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a question of law has already been decided by the same bench in a related matter, and the question is identical, then the appeal will be dismissed if it does not raise a substantial question of law. No specific operative directions were given as the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This is an Income Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai, against HDFC Bank Ltd. The appeal is before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is identical to a question decided in a related appeal, Income Tax Appeal No. 330 of 2012, by the same bench of the High Court on the same day. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history leading to this appeal is not detailed, other than it being an appeal against an order or action of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (implied by the context of an ITAT judgment, though not explicitly stated in the provided text).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal raises a substantial question of law, as framed by the appellant (Revenue). Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (HDFC Bank Ltd.) in this appeal. The decision is based on the finding that the substantial question of law is identical to one decided in a previous appeal. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai, contends that the appeal raises a substantial question of law. However, the specific arguments or grounds raised by the Revenue are not detailed in the provided text. The Revenue's position is implicitly that the question of law framed warrants consideration by the High Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

vrd 1 ITXA335/12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.335 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai 400 020 ...Appellant v/s HDFC Bank Ltd. ...Respondent Mr Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel with Mr Atul Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.

Reserved on : 10th July 2014. Pronounced on : 23rd July 2014. JUDGMENT [ Per B.P. Colabawalla J. ] :- 1. It is common ground before us that the substantial question of law framed in this Appeal is identical to question “A” in Income Tax Appeal No.330 of 2012, which has been decided by us today. In view of our judgment in Income Tax Appeal No.330 of 2012 and for the reasons stated therein, we are of the view that even this Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. In view thereof, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( B.P. COLABAWALLA J. ) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI J. ) CNR No : HCBM020044412012 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 04:19:44 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →