:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.80 OF 1999 TAX APPLICATION NO.80 OF 1999 TAX APPLICATION NO.80 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. American Express Bank Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Parag Vyas for the Appellant. Mr.P.J.Pardiwala for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 18TH JULY, 2008 : 18TH JULY, 2008 : 18TH JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking a reference with regard to the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.30,64,005/- made by the A.O. on account of memorandum interest? 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that head office expenses directly incurred at head office on behalf of Indian branches do not fall under Section 44C of the Act and are deductible under Section 37(1) of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding head office expenses allocated to Indian branches are allowable in full to the extent allowable to income from interest on securities as the restriction under Section 44C is applicable only to income under the head profits :2: and gains of business not to the head "Interest on securities". 3. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking reference dated 24th July,1998 specially for the reasons stated in paragraph No.4. The Revenue had accepted and not challenged the rejection of the Application before the Tribunal on the very same questions of law for the earlier assessment year 1984-85. 4. In view thereof, we are not inclined to entertain the above Application and the same stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)