CIT v. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions

297 ITR 70High Court2006#5493 most cited

What is CIT v. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions authority for?

Interest earned on fixed deposits placed with a bank for obtaining a bank guarantee necessary for the business, or for business exigencies, is to be treated as business income and not income from other sources.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions · 297 ITR 70 · business income · income from other sources · fixed deposits · bank guarantee · business exigencies · interest income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(35)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 145(3) of the Income Tax ActSection 14A

Issues it is cited on

income from other sourcesprevious yearsection 143(3)total incomebusinessdocumentindiainterestcompany

Judgments citing CIT v. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions

Shreenath Realtors, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7295/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarshreenath Realtors, Ito Ward - 19(3)(1), 10 Patel Mansion, Mumbai Proctor Road, Grant Vs. Piramal Chambers, Road, Mumbai-400 007 4Th Floor, Room No. 405, Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Abifs7530G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Priyanka Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shreenath Realtors, ITO Ward - 19(3)(1), 10 Patel Mansion, Mumbai Proctor Road, Grant Vs. Piramal Chambers, Road, Mumbai-400 007 4th Floor, Room No. 405, Dr. SS Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN/GIR No. ABIFS7530G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Priyanka Jain, Ld. AR Revenue by Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 01.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is di…

M/S.Dee Control and Electric Private Limited, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 551/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…pts instead of being taxed at 100%. He pointed out that this principle had been followed in previous years. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Construction (2008) 297 ITR 70 (Ker), DCIT vs Teenlog Advisory Services P. Ltd. (2016) 159 ITD 991 (Kolkata) and the decision of the 3 M/s Dee Control and Electric Private Limited A.Y. 2015-16 Hon’ble Patna High Court in the matter of Shyam Bihari vs. CIT (2012) 345 ITR 283 (Pat). He also filed a petition under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence. It was prayed that…

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Music Broadcast Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 590/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Music Broadcast Limited Asst. Cit-14(2)(2) 5Th Floor, Rna Corporate Park, Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra, Mumbai-400 051

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Music Broadcast Limited Asst. CIT-14(2)(2) 5th Floor, RNA Corporate Park, Room No. 432, 4th Floor, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AACCM 4036 H (Assessee) : (Revenue) DCIT-14(2)(1) Music Broadcast Limited Room No. 432, 4th Floor, 5th Floor, RNA Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. AACCM 4036 H (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Manish Malik, Assessee by Shri Hardik Shah…

Music Broadcast Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and

ITA 525/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Music Broadcast Limited Asst. Cit-14(2)(2) 5Th Floor, Rna Corporate Park, Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra, Mumbai-400 051

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Music Broadcast Limited Asst. CIT-14(2)(2) 5th Floor, RNA Corporate Park, Room No. 432, 4th Floor, Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AACCM 4036 H (Assessee) : (Revenue) DCIT-14(2)(1) Music Broadcast Limited Room No. 432, 4th Floor, 5th Floor, RNA Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra (E), Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. AACCM 4036 H (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Manish Malik, Assessee by Shri Hardik Shah…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…oyees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 17(2)(1) e. If the investment is made as business exigencies, income arising from said investment is business income and not income from other sources. It was held in CIT vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions 297 ITR 70 (Kar) - (Refer Annexure 18). that if FDs were placed with bank for availing bank guarantee for utilizing in the business, interest on such bank fixed deposits was treated as business income and not income from other sources. Applying the same ratio, the dividend earned on shares bought for the purpose of availing loan, which was utilised in the bu…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…oyees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward 17(2)(1) e. If the investment is made as business exigencies, income arising from said investment is business income and not income from other sources. It was held in CIT vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions 297 ITR 70 (Kar) - (Refer Annexure 18). that if FDs were placed with bank for availing bank guarantee for utilizing in the business, interest on such bank fixed deposits was treated as business income and not income from other sources. Applying the same ratio, the dividend earned on shares bought for the purpose of availing loan, which was utilised in the bu…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar vs. M/S. Deep Recycling Ind., Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 324/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Praveen Verma, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.R
Section 10BSection 10B(4)

…. Therefore the interest income earned thereon should be treated as business income of the assessee. The assessee in support of his claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions reported in 297 ITR 70. 4.2 The assessee also submitted that as per the provision of Section 10B(4) of the Act, the entire profit of the business undertaking registered as 100% EOU is eligible for deduction. ITA Nos.367 & 324/Rjt/2015 Deep Recycling Industries A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 4.3 The assessee in support of his claim also relied on the order of Karnataka High C…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S. Deep Recycloing Industries, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 367/RJT/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Praveen Verma, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.R
Section 10BSection 10B(4)

…. Therefore the interest income earned thereon should be treated as business income of the assessee. The assessee in support of his claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions reported in 297 ITR 70. 4.2 The assessee also submitted that as per the provision of Section 10B(4) of the Act, the entire profit of the business undertaking registered as 100% EOU is eligible for deduction. ITA Nos.367 & 324/Rjt/2015 Deep Recycling Industries A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 4.3 The assessee in support of his claim also relied on the order of Karnataka High C…

Abhilasha Construction, Jhansi vs. JCIT Range-6, Jhansi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2018AY 2010-11
Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 40

…(All. H.C) ITA 314/Agr/2015 8 (b) M/s Awasthi Traders, Etawah Vs CIT, Agra (2014) 5 TMI 1119 (All) (c) Mahesh Chandra Contractor Vs ITO, Etawah (ITAT, Agra Bench) (d) Sagamihara’sCIT (2012) 25 Taxman.com 117 (Patna) (e )CIT Vs ChinnaNachimuthu Construction 297 ITR 70 (Karn.) (f) ITO VsTahirAli (2001) 116 Taxman 226 (Jab) (Mag) (g) Ganesh Builders Vs CIT (2013) 87 DTR (Jd)(Trib) 182 8. Per contra, the Ld D.R defended the action of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as the N.P rate was applied by the AO only on the contract receipt amounting to Rs. 12,76,42,860/- and just by omission of interest Income which as…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. I M C Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…e judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shyam Bihari Vs. CIT & ANR reported in 345 ITR 283. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- “The Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Construction 297 ITR 70 noticed that the investment of amount in ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page 29 fixed deposits by the assessee was only to provide a bank guarantee to the contractee in order to acquire the contract work. On such facts it held that the interest income could not be treated as income from oth…

M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…e judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shyam Bihari Vs. CIT & ANR reported in 345 ITR 283. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- “The Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Construction 297 ITR 70 noticed that the investment of amount in ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page 29 fixed deposits by the assessee was only to provide a bank guarantee to the contractee in order to acquire the contract work. On such facts it held that the interest income could not be treated as income from oth…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 781/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…e judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shyam Bihari Vs. CIT & ANR reported in 345 ITR 283. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:- “The Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Construction 297 ITR 70 noticed that the investment of amount in ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page 29 fixed deposits by the assessee was only to provide a bank guarantee to the contractee in order to acquire the contract work. On such facts it held that the interest income could not be treated as income from oth…

Pinebridge Investments Capital India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4355/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4355/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Pinebridge Investments Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Capital India Private Income Tax Circle 6(1), V. Limited, Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, 1101, Tower “B”, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Business Park, M.K. Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafca7262A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 250

…[1995] 216 ITR 535 5. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Nagpur Engineering Co Ltd. 245 ITR 806 6. Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. 190 ITR 259 7. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions , 297 ITR 70. Thus the assessee prayed that interest income earned from placing fixed deposit be considered to be income from profits and gains from business or profession and not income from other sources. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and held that this activity is not covered in the main objects of the business of the assessee hen…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S Teenlok Advisory Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1351/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…d on such deposits cannot be treated as income from other sources. Therefore, income from interest on deposit was business income and not income from other sources." The Ld. A/R has also relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions [2008] 297 ITR 70 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held that “as the investment of amount in fixed deposits by the assessee was only to secure a bank guarantee to be offered to KPTCL in order to acquire a contract work, it could not, therefore, be treated as an income from other sources and interest occurred on such fixed deposits had to be treate…

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata. vs. M/S Britannia Engineering Ltd, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 475/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Das,JCIT, Sr.DR

…ead “Income from other sources”. (1) CIT vs. Lok Holdings (308 ITR 356)(Bom) (2) CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd. (284 ITR 389)(Bom) (3) CIT vs. Vidyut Steel Ltd. (219 ITR 30)(AP) (4) CIT vs. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (Del) (5) CIT Vs. China Nachimuthu Constructions 297 ITR 70 (Karn.) 5. The CIT(A) agreed with the contention of the Assessee and he held as follows: 2.3 I have considered the above submission of the appellant and also gone through the assessment order. The appellant company is an Enterprise wholly owned by the Government of West Bengal. The appellant has made fixed deposits which have been used for bank o…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S International Stones India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e sanction terms of the bank. Hence these deposits were part of business income as considered in AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (…

M/S International Stone India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e sanction terms of the bank. Hence these deposits were part of business income as considered in AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (…

M/S International Stones I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1475/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e sanction terms of the bank. Hence these deposits were part of business income as considered in AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (…

M/S |Nternational Stones I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1474/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e sanction terms of the bank. Hence these deposits were part of business income as considered in AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S International Stones India P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1332/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e sanction terms of the bank. Hence these deposits were part of business income as considered in AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 and not to be treated as income from other sources. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- a) CIT v. Chinna Constructions (2006) 297 ITR 70 (Kar) b) CIT v. Koshika Telecom Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 479 (Del) c) ACIT v. Allied Construction (2007) 106 TTJ 616 (Del Trib.) 42. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that interest received from bank was not connected with the business of the undertaking of the assessee. Relying on the decisions of K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (…

CIT v. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions (297 ITR 70) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax