Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S.City Union Bank Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
Mention-listing order in five tax case appeals modifying an earlier judgment dated 10.09.2024 by splitting Paragraph 20 into Paragraphs 20 to 22 restating that substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue except Question No.8, remitting assessment for fresh orders on deductions claimed under Section 36(1)(vii).
What the court decided
T.C.A.Nos.268, 269, 272, 273 and 274 of 2015
T.C.A.Nos.268, 269, 272, 273 and 274 of 2015
R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and C.SARAVANAN, J.
(Judgment of the Court was made by C.SARAVANAN, J.)
Today, these cases are listed under the caption “for being mentioned” at
the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
- After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, we are inclined to modify Paragraph No.20 and split it as Paragraph No.20, Paragraph No.21 and Paragraph No.22. They read as follows:-
"20. In the result, all the Substantial Questions of Law barring the Substantial Question of Law No.8 is answered against the Revenue. Thus, the Substantial Question of Law No.8 is answered in favour of the Revenue.
21. Therefore, these cases are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law for re-examination of the benefits of claim under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(vii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
22. With these observations and directions, these Tax Case Appeals stand disposed of . No cost."
Coram
R. Suresh Kumar
C. Saravanan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court