Partly allowed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Cochin v. the Federal Bank Ltd., H.O., H.O.Federal

Kerala HC18 Dec 2018ITA/38/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed income tax appeals of Commissioner against Federal Bank. Cases partially allowed rejecting disallowance of bad debt provisions for non-rural branches, permitting gift expenditure to shareholders, and holding Section 14A inapplicable to assessment year 2004-05.

What did the court decide?

ITAs partly allowed on third question (rural branch determination) and specific questions; rejected on others.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Cochin Vs the Federal Bank Ltd… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

ITA.No. 352 of 2009

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 31/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 30-06-2003

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE-1.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.TERRY V.JAMES

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.38/2011, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶24

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶25

ITA.No. 38 of 2011

¶26

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 710/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-09-2010

¶27

APPELLANT/S:

¶28

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COCHIN

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶30

RESPONDENT/S:

¶31

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., H.O., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA-683101.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶33

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.352/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009 & ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶35

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶39

¶40

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶41

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶42

ITA.No. 597 of 2009

¶43

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 450/1999 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004

¶44

APPELLANT/S:

¶45

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.

¶46

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶47

RESPONDENT/S:

¶48

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA.

¶49

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶50

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶52

¶53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶56

¶57

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶58

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶59

ITA.No. 755 of 2009

¶60

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 246/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004

¶61

APPELLANT/S:

¶62

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.

¶63

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶64

RESPONDENT/S:

¶65

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA

¶66

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶67

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH	HAVING BEEN ITA.1287/2009	FINA ,	LLY HEARD ON ITA.872/2009,
ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009,	ITA.769/200	9,	ITA.597/2009,
ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE THE FOLLOWING:	COURT ON THE	SAME	DAY DELIVERED

¶68

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶69

¶70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶71

PRESENT

¶72

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶73

¶74

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶75

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶76

ITA.No. 769 of 2009

¶77

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 491/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006

¶78

APPELLANT/S:

¶79

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.

¶80

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶81

RESPONDENT/S:

¶82

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.

¶83

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶84

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶85

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶86

¶87

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶88

PRESENT

¶89

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶90

¶91

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶92

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶93

ITA.No. 815 of 2009

¶94

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 459/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH

¶95

APPELLANT/S:

¶96

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.

¶97

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶98

RESPONDENT/S:

¶99

FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA.

¶100

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶101

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009 ITA.817/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶102

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶103

¶104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶105

PRESENT

¶106

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶107

¶108

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶109

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶110

ITA.No. 817 of 2009

¶111

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 654/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006

¶112

APPELLANT/S:

¶113

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.

¶114

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶115

RESPONDENT/S:

¶116

THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.

¶117

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶118

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL	HAVING BEEN	FINA	LLY HEARD ON
18.12.2018, ALONG WITH	ITA.1287/2009	,	ITA.872/2009,
ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE THE FOLLOWING:	ITA.755/2009 COURT ON THE	, SAME	ITA.597/2009, DAY DELIVERED

¶119

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶120

¶121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶122

PRESENT

¶123

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶124

¶125

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶126

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶127

ITA.No. 872 of 2009

¶128

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 26/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004

¶129

APPELLANT/S:

¶130

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.

¶131

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶132

RESPONDENT/S:

¶133

M/S. FEDERAL BANK LTD. ALUVA.

¶134

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶135

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL	HAVING BEEN	FINA	LLY HEARD ON
18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.817/2009, ITA.769/2009,	ITA.1287/2009 ITA.755/200	, 9,	ITA.815/2009, ITA.597/2009,
ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE THE FOLLOWING:	COURT ON THE	SAME	DAY DELIVERED

¶136

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶137

¶138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶139

PRESENT

¶140

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶141

¶142

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶143

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶144

ITA.No. 1287 of 2009

¶145

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 1110/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 11-10-2007

¶146

APPELLANT/S:

¶147

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.

¶148

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶149

RESPONDENT/S:

¶150

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA.

¶151

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶152

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶153

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶154

¶155

JUDGMENT

¶156

[ITA 352/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.1287/2009 & ITA.38/2011]

¶157

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶158

Common questions arise in many of the appeals, but

¶159

not in all. In such circumstances, we would first frame the questions of law arising in the appeals and then answer it, which would lead to the disposal of the appeals as such. The questions of law re-framed are as follows:

¶160

I) Whether the bad debts written off, for nonrural branches claimed under clause (vii) of Section 36(1) has to be allowed only in excess of the provision made for rural branches under clause (viia) of Section 36(1) ? II) Whether depreciation or loss on revaluation of securities can be permitted on the basis of the market value or cost price, whichever is less, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India ?

¶161

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶162

¶163

III) In determining the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia), has the non-rural branches to be determined on the basis of a revenue village and the population thereat ? IV) Whether the interest accrued on securities, which are not yet matured has to be assessed as income for the year ? V) Whether the expenditure for purchase of gifts given to shareholders, who participated in the annual general meeting can be considered as a permissible business expenditure under Section 37 ? VI) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having not applied Section 14A for the assessment year 2004-05 ? VII) Whether the current investments written off can be claimed as loss for the assessment year in which it has been written off ? VIII) Whether the enhancement made by the First Appellate Authority under Section 14A could be sustained in view of the specific proviso

¶164

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶165

¶166

prohibiting enhancement before the assessment

¶167

year 2001-02 ?

¶168

IX) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having permitted the allowance of write off of an amount, which the assessee was entitled to, as dividend from another company, which was returned as income on receipt of a cheque, which subsequently got dishonoured ?

¶169

On the first question the issue has to be

¶170

answered in favour of the assesee and against the Revenue, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶171

Court in [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. The Assessing Officer shall verify the computation, looking into whether there is any allowance granted for provision of bad debts in nonrural branches for the previous years. In which event alone, the allowance of written off of bad debts in non-rural branches will be confined to the excess

¶172

allowed from the provision made, and deduction allowed, for non-rural branches. We make it clear that in making the computation, there can be no consideration of the

¶173

¶174

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶175

provision for bad debts for rural branches as granted

¶176

under clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the first question in I.T.A.Nos.352, 769, 872 & 815 of 2009 and I.T.A.No.38/2011 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

¶177

On depreciation or loss; the issue of

¶178

revaluation of securities is covered by [2003] 264 ITR 545 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and [2011] 339 ITR 606 (Ker), C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.

¶179

This Court had held that revaluation of securities can

¶180

be only on the basis of market value or cost price, whichever is lesser, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank

¶181

of India. The Tribunal's order to that extent is

¶182

upheld. Question No.II is answered in favour of the

¶183

assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.597 and 872 of 2009.

¶184

On the third question, the issue stands covered

¶185

in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In

¶186

Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. , this Court had held that the

¶187

determination of non-rural branches shall be only with reference to the revenue villages and not solely on the

¶188

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶189

¶190

basis of the population. This Court specifically

¶191

noticed the anomaly insofar as even wards in

¶192

municipalities being included for identification of rural branches, when the identification is on the basis

¶193

of the population alone in wards of the local

¶194

authorities. We hence answer the third question in

¶195

favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in

¶196

I.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872 and 1287 of

¶197

The dis-allowance made by the Assessing Officer to that extent has to be restored.

¶198

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶199

assessee has an alternative submission insofar as the

¶200

assessee having written off the said debts and there

¶201

being no requirement to find out whether those are

¶202

rural branches or not. The contention is that the

¶203

assessee could have claimed it under clause (viia) of

¶204

Section 36(1). A similar contention was raised in

¶205

assessee's own case in a batch of cases decided on

¶206

11.12.2018 in I.T.A.No.533/2009 and connected cases. We have found that such a question does not arise in the

¶207

Revenue's appeal. The assessee had also not taken up

¶208

¶209

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶210

such a contention before any of the authorities. In

¶211

such circumstances, the assessee cannot be permitted to take that contention at this stage, especially when there is no appeal filed by the assessee. We hence refuse to look into the said contention.

¶212

The fourth question also stands covered in

¶213

favour of the assessee as per the decision of this

¶214

Court in [2008] 301 ITR 188 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Federal

¶215

Bank Ltd. The S.L.P. from the aforesaid decision numbered as S.L.P.(CC) No.17071/2008 also stands dismissed. Hence, this question is answered in favour

¶216

of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.769, 815, 817 and 1287 of 2009.

¶217

On the fifth question, another Division Bench of this Court had in judgment dated 04.02.2008 in I.T.A.No.191/2001, Federal Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. found

¶218

the same to be permissible allowance as business

¶219

expenditure under Section 37. S.L.P.(C) No.2070/2009

¶220

from the aforesaid judgment also stands dismissed. We, hence, answer the said question in I.T.A.No.352/2009 in

¶221

favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

¶222

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶223

¶224

The sixth question deals with Section 14A and

¶225

the application of the same in the assessment year

¶226

2004-05. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2018] 401 ITR

¶227

445 (SC), C.I.T. v. ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd., had

¶228

found that the provision can be made applicable only

¶229

from the assessment year 2007-08. Hence, for the

¶230

assessment year 2004-05, Section 14A has no application. Hence, the said question is answered in

¶231

favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.815/2009.

¶232

On current investments written off, this Court

¶233

in I.T.A.No.411/2009 ( C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. )

¶234

followed the decision in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and [1999]

¶235

240 ITR 355 (SC), United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v.

¶236

C.I.T., WB-II, Calcutta to rule in favour of the

¶237

assessee. The question hence is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in

¶238

I.T.A.No.815/2009.

¶239

The enhancement made by the C.I.T. (Appeals) is

¶240

the issue raised as question No.VIII. The issue has to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the

¶241

¶242

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶243

prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 14A, as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ESSAR

¶244

Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd. The prohibition is specific and there can be no application of Section 14A also in the assessment year 1998-99 in which the enhancement was attempted by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009.

¶245

The last question arising in the assessment year 1998-99 is on the dividend received by cheque, later written off for reason of the cheque being dishonoured. In the previous assessment year, the assessee had returned as income the dividend received from another company, when the cheque on that count was received. However, later the cheque presented got dishonoured. The assessee hence wrote off the said amount due to it as dividend and claimed for allowance

¶246

under Section 36(1). The Tribunal allowed the same.

¶247

We do not find any infirmity in the allowance, since if at all the assessee gets the dividend in a later year,

¶248

it could be treated as income in that year. The write

¶249

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶250

¶251

off on the ground of dishonour of cheque cannot at all

¶252

be disputed and is evident from the books of accounts. We, hence, answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009.

¶253

Hence, I.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872, 1287

¶254

of 2009 are partly allowed on the third question alone. I.T.A.Nos.352/2009 and 38/2011 are rejected. No costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶263

¶264

APPENDIX OF ITA 352/2009

¶265

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶266

ANNEXURE-A	COPY	OF OR	IGINAL	ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.
	143(3	) DATE	D 27/	3/1996 ISSUED BY THE
	ASSES 1993-	SING O 94.	FFICER	FOR THE ASST. YEAR
ANNEXURE-B	COPY COMMI	OF THE SSIONER	ORDER OF INC	DATED 18/11/1996 OF THE OME TAX (APPEALS).
ANNEXURE-C	COPY INCOM	OF THE E TAX	ORDER APPELLA	DATED 30/6/2003 OF THE TE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.
	35, 31/CO	36 AN CH/2000	D 37/C .	OCH/2000 AND ITA NO.

¶267

APPENDIX OF ITA 38/2011

¶268

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶269

ANNEXURE-A	COPY OF 29/11/2007	ASSESSMENT FOR THE A	ORDER 143(3) DATED SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07.
ANNEXURE-B	COPY OF O OF THE (APPEALS).	RDER DATED COMMISSIO	27/3/2008 AND 9/4/2008 NER OF INCOME TAX
ANNEXURE-C	COPY OF T INCOME TAX IN ITA NO.	HE ORDER APPELLATE 718/COCH/2	DATED 17/9/2010 OF THE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH 008
ANNEXURE-D	COPY OF 16/1/2008	THE HIGH IN ITA NO.	COURT ORDER DATED 73 OF 2008.

¶270

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶271

¶272

APPENDIX OF ITA 597/2009

¶273

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶274

ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/3/1997 U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.

¶275

ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/8/1999 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).

¶276

ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 450/COCH/1999 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.

¶277

APPENDIX OF ITA 755/2009

¶278

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶279

ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/8/2000 U/S. 143(3)R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.

¶280

ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/3/2001 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)

¶281

ANNEXURE-C

¶282

COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 246/COCH/01 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.

¶283

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶284

¶285

APPENDIX OF ITA 769/2009

¶286

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶287

ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 19.2.2003 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001-02. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.491/(COCH)/2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001-02.

¶288

APPENDIX OF ITA 815/2009

¶289

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶290

ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 16/12/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/5/2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/1/2008 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO. 459/COCH/2006.

¶291

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶292

¶293

APPENDIX OF ITA 817/2009

¶294

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶295

ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 23/11/2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04

¶296

ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1/2005 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/8/2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 654/(COCH)/2005 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04.

¶297

APPENDIX OF ITA 872/2009

¶298

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶299

ANNEXURE A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2001 U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99.

¶300

ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2001 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).

¶301

ANNEXURE C

¶302

COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.26/COCH/2002 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99.

¶303

ITA 352/2009 & connected cases

¶304

¶305

APPENDIX OF ITA 1287/2009

¶306

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶307

ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143 (3) DATED 26.3.2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03. ANNEXURE B COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.7.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2007 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.1110/COCH/2004.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Cochin v. the Federal Bank Ltd., H.O., H.O.Federal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Cochin v. the Federal Bank Ltd., H.O., H.O.Federal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur Vs the Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Commissioner of Incopme Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.

Shyna Subash, Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Federal Bank Ltd.