2018 (3) TMI 1777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l; hence both the appeals were heard together and are decided by common order. For appreciation of fact, we are discussing the fact for Assessment Year 2008-09. Though the revenue has raised two ground of appeal, however, as per our considered view the sole ground of appeal is whether ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the broken period interest expenditure. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is Banking Company. The assessee is carrying banking business. The assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was completed on 30.12.2010 under section 143(3). Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 147. Notice under section 148 dated 31.12.2013 was served upon the assessee- bank. In response to the notice under section 148, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Bank of Rajasthan (2009) 178 Taxman 304 (Raj). On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld CIT(A) and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. City Bank in C.A. No. 1549 of 2006 dated Rs. 12.08.2008 by considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in American Express International Banking Corporation vs. CIT (supra) and earlier decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijaya Bank vs. ACIT (supra) allowed the broken period interest expenses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. CIT (supra) and held that the decision in Vijaya Bank (supra) have no app....