DCIT vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The instant appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The impugned order was passed by the Learned Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act. The revenue argued that the reassessment was initiated based on information and inference from a revenue audit objection, which constituted valid reasons to believe under section 147 of the Act. The respondent, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, argued that the reopening was based solely on a mere change of opinion and in the absence of any new tangible material. The bank had claimed deduction under section 35D of the Act in respect of expenses incurred on the Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIB) issue during F.Y. 2013-14.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that reopening is not sustainable due to lack of new tangible material.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon certain High Court and Supreme Court decisions without distinguishing them on facts.
• 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that expenses incurred in connection with QIBs are not eligible for amortization under section 35D of the Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Ramasamy Kandasamy v. The ITO

  Chennai benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Techna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Rajesh Kumar Dalmia Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• M/s Aryan Share & Stock Brokers Limited. v. ITO Corp Ward-1

• IFCI Infrastructure Development Ltd. vs Addl/Jt. CIT Range-4, New Delhi

  Delhi Bench 'C' benchAY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17Allowed

• DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi-110055 Vs Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd.