Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT 1. We have heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, and Mr. Mistry, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. 2. Our attention has been invited to the order passed by a Division Bench of this court to which one of us is a party. That was passed in the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. which is the successor-in-title of the present assessee. The order dated March 11, 2014, in Income Tax Appeal No. 1105 of 2012, thus, directly covers the question 4(a), projected as substantial question of law. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the appeal survives in so far as question 4(b) on page 3. That reads as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the pre-condition of notification in the Official Gazette, introduced by the Finance Act, 1997, with effect from April 1, 1998, was not applicable to the bonds purchased by the assessee during the financial year 1997-98 relevant to the assessment year1998-99 ?" 3. In that regard Mr. Suresh Kumar invites our attention to the assessment order and that of the Commissioner of Income-tax and submits that the concurrent findings should not have been reversed by the Tribunal particularly when it was not disputed that tax was deducted at source. Exemption in favour of the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MSRDC) was not produced as is evidenced from a letter addressed by the said entity and contents of which are reproduced at pages 82 and 83 of the paper book. 4. Mr. Mistry, learned…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492