9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok Kotangle a/w. Mr. P.A. Narayanan a/w. Mr. Sandeep Gupta for the Respondents. P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30 December 2002 in Income Tax Appeal No. 1709/Bom/1995 for the assessment year 1990-91. 3. The Appeal was admitted on 15 October 2004 framing the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal which was dismissed by the impugned order. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal observing thus: "4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. As per the A/R, on the CRR maintained by the assessee, interest is receivable @ 3 % per annum whereas when there is a failure to maintain the CRR, the assessee is liable to pay penal interest @ 3 % above the bank r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in nature. The learned CIT (A) having given detailed reasons in coming to the conclusion that the interest is not compensatory in nature, we see no reason to interfere with his order." 6. The learned Counsel for the parties have placed before us the decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Bank of Baroda Income Tax Appeal No. 4169 of 2009 decided on 15 February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pex Court as reported in [2005] 277 I.T.R. (ST) 3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs." 7. In the light of the decision rendered in the case of Bank of Baroda as reproduced above, the question framed will have to be answered in favour of the Appellant and is accordingly, so answered in favour of the Appellant. 8. The App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
