SREE SUBRAMANYESWARA CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1267/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 August 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order after a careful perusal of the lower authorities' orders. No defects were pointed out in the CIT(A)'s order, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a co-operative bank, appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which treated investments in Government Securities classified as 'Held to Maturity' as 'Stock-in-trade'. This led to a reassessment of profit on sale of these securities.

What were the issues?

Whether investments in Government Securities classified as 'Held to Maturity' should be treated as 'Stock-in-trade', and the consequential treatment of profits on their sale as business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’

Before: SRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SRI. ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

Hearing: 23.08.2016Pronounced: 26.08.2016

O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, J.M

This appeal is preferred by the Assessee, against the order of the CIT(A) inter alia on the following grounds:

ITA 1267/Bang/14 Page 2 of 3

1.

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income – Tax (Appeals) – II, Bangalore in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs. 2,73,48,379/- as against returned income of Rs. 2,44,87,950/- under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – II is not justified in confirming the assessment order insofar as treating the investments in Government Securities classified as “Held to Maturity” as “Stock-in- trade” under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – II, is not justified in confirming the assessment insofar as profit on sale of Government Securities of Rs. 26,45,725/- as business income as against the long- term capital loss of Rs. 76,84,991/- claimed by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

The appellant denies itself liable to be charged interest under section 234B & 234C of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case.

6.

For the above and such other grounds that may be urged during the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.

2 This appeal was listed for hearing on 23/08/2016 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. As per record it is noticed that on earlier dates the authorised representative for the assessee used to appear before the Tribunal and sought adjournments. Despite having knowledge of date fixed, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We therefore had no option but to hear the appeal ex parte qua assessee.

ITA 1267/Bang/14 Page 3 of 3 3 Accordingly the revenue was heard. On a careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below we find that impugned issues were thoroughly examined by the CIT(A). Since no defect has been pointed out in the order of CIT(A) we confirm the order. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

4 In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →