CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…t on securities, which does not fall under the head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession, has to be brought to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. The assessee, in its reply, has relied on the case of CIT vs. Cocananda Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [57 ITR 306(SC)] and further submitted that it has been settled by a series of decisions of the High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the securities held by the Banks may constitute as either stock-in-trade or investment. If the I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 argument of the assessee is applied in its case, then as can be…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

…t on securities, which does not fall under the head Profits and Gains of Business or Profession, has to be brought to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. The assessee, in its reply, has relied on the case of CIT vs. Cocananda Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [57 ITR 306(SC)] and further submitted that it has been settled by a series of decisions of the High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the securities held by the Banks may constitute as either stock-in-trade or investment. If the I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 argument of the assessee is applied in its case, then as can be…

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…been followed by the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd.'s case [1991] 187 ITR 541. It is true that once an income falls under section 18, it cannot come under section 28. However, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.'s case [1965] 57 ITR 306, income from securities treated as trading assets can come under section 28. In the present case, the Departent has treated income from securities under section 28. Lastly, the facts in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. [1957] 32 ITR 688 (SC), also support our view in the present case. In United Commercial Bank Ltd.'s case [1957] 32 ITR 688…

TATA INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CIRCLE- 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

…he statutory requirement that the computation of the dividend income had to be under the head "other sources", still the income could be treated as business income for all other purposes. See Commissioner of Income- tax v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chugandas & Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17 (SC). Even bearing in mind this principle and assuming that M/s. Tata Industries Ltd we have to treat the dividend income as business income for our present purpose, still it cannot be held that there is such a nexus between the expenditure and the business or the income of th…