-1_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2002 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2002 American Express Bank Ltd. : Appellant v/s Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City I, Mumbai : Respondent Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla a/w Mr. N. Doshi i/b CR Bayley & co.Advocate for Appellant Mr. Parag Vyas a/w R.A. Vaishampayan Advocate for respondent Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 21.8.2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The above Income Tax Appeal no. 709/2002 was admitted by the order dt. 7.9.2004 on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 21,94,91,333/- whilst computing the Appellant’s income? -2_ 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 20,16,885/- being the expenses incurred by the New York office exclusively in connection with the operations of the Appellant in India were to be subjected to the limits specified in section 44C of the Act? 3. Above appeal pertains to assessment year 1988-89. 4. Income Tax appeal 710/2002 was admitted by the order dt. 7.9.2004 on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 41,95,93,145/- whilst computing the Appellant’s income? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 39,94,880/- being the expenses incurred by the -3_ New York office exclusively in connection with the operations of the Appellant in India were to be subjected to the limits specified in section 44C of the Act? 5. The above appeal pertains to assessment year 1989-90. 6. After hearing the learned counsel Mr. Pardiwalla for appellant and Mr. Vyas for the respondent, Mr. Vyas fairly conceeded that as far as question no.1 in both the above appeals are concerned the same is squarely covered by the judgment of our court in assessee’s own case in American Express International Banking vs.CIT(Bom.)258 ITR 614 wherein this court has answered the same question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Mr. Pardiwalla states across the bar that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of our court the revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein leave was granted and finally appeal came to be dismissed sometime back. 7. As far as second question of law is concerned Mr. Pardiwalla brought to our notice this court while dealing with the same question of law which was -4_ treated as question no.1 in Income Tax reference no. 3/02 pertaining to assessment year 1987-88 decided the same by an order dt. 17.7.2002 holding very clearly that in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd.(Bom.) 262 ITR 55 the above question was answered in negative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In view of the same we also answer second question in law in negative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)