Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that , that firstly, the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as required under section 260A of the Act though it heard the appeal bipartite. In other words, the High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that it did not involve any substantial question of law. Secondly, the High Court dismissed the appeal without deciding any issue arising in the case saying that it was not necessary. Thirdly, the main issue involved in this appeal with regard to the applicability of section 35D of the Act to the assessee was not decided. The High Court should have framed the substantial question of law on the applicability of section 35D of the Act in addition to other questions and then answered them in accordance with law. Since the issue with regard to applicability of section 35D of the Act to the assessee was already pending consideration before the High Court in appeal, both the appeals should be decided together.( AY. 2007 -08)
CIT v. Yes Bank Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 459 / 307 CTR 593/ 175 DTR 409 / 262 Taxman 446 (SC) Editorial: Decision in CIT v. Yes Bank Ltd ( ITA No. 599 of 2015 dt 1-8 -2017 ( Bom) (HC) is set aside .
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Revision — Amortisation of preliminary expenses — Bank — Expenses in relation to initial public offer —Revision was quashed by appellate Tribunal and up held by High Court – Matter remanded to High Court to frame question of law and decide the matter .[ S. 35D, 263 ]