2024 (12) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 22.01.2016 on the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the order u/s. 263 without appreciating that, out of provision of Rs.407,35,36,368/- made for depreciation on investment and the assessee had added back only Rs.2,32,66,62,407/- relating to investments in India and excluded Rs.1,74,68,73,967/- relating to investments outside India when the CIT directed the AO to add back Rs.174,68,73,967/- on this account. 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a banking company. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 in which total in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Assessment Year 1996-97 held that the Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and since, the tribunal has already decided this issue in favour of the assessee, the same is binding on both the parties. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the sole foundation of the order passed by the tribunal is the decision passed by the tribunal in the appeals. It is pointed out that against the decision relied upon by the tribunal, the revenue had preferred an appeal viz., I.T.A.No.2300/2005 before this court, which was decided vide judgment dated 03.03.....