How many judgments cite CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (57 ITR 306), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 14A, Section 24(a), Section 24(b), Section 244A, Section 36(1)(3), Section 36(1)(vii).

CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.

57 ITR 306Supreme Court of India1965#2515 most cited

What is CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. authority for?

The nature of the activity giving rise to income is fundamental in determining the deductibility of expenses. Interest on loans for acquiring properties held as current assets is a deductible business expenditure if incurred for business purposes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. · 57 ITR 306 · Section 36(1)(iii) · Section 37(1) · deductibility of interest · business expenditure · interest on borrowed capital · current assets · nature of business activity · business purpose of expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 14A Section 24(a)Section 24(b)Section 244A Section 36(1)(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 80e section 75 section 32(2)convertible foreign exchange section 80ab section 80m section 32a section 71 section 72 section 80h domestic company section 80c

Judgments citing CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.

M/S. Globe Textiles, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Now Re-Designated As Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1227/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S. Globe Textiles, Vs. Ito, 45-46, Hashimi Estate, Ward – 2(1), Udhna Main Road, Surat. Surat-394 210. [Pan No. Aacfg 2121 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Mr. Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 71

…as capital gain u/s 50 and, therefore, the assessee is entitled to set off of brought forward losses against such capital gains. The same view has also been upheld in another matter by the Apex Court in the case of CIT-vs-Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 306 (SC). Taking into consideration, the case made out by the assessee which is evident on record and also relying upon the ratio settled by the judgment as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the set off of brought forward depreciation and business loss against capital gains is allowable in the present facts and circumstances of the c…

Ambuja Cement India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2600/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234B

…the head Income from Other classification prescribed by the I.T. for the Sources. Hence brought forward purpose of computation] business loss cannot be set-off CIT -vs.- Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (1965) I.T.A. No.2600/Mum/2014 against income from other 57 ITR 306 (SC) sources. [CIT(A)'s order Pg. No. As long as income is in the nature of business 35] income, then even if these income are liable to be taxed under a head other than income from business and profession, the loss carried forward can be set off against such income of the assessee Snam Proeetti S.P.A. - vs.- ACIT (1981) 132 ITR 70(Del) Interest e…

Mumbai Kamgar Madhyawarti, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3770/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan &For Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 72

…also noted that the Assessing Officer while finalising the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 (supra) failed to correctly apply the law and legal provisions inasmuch as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cocanada Radhaswamy Bank, 57 ITR 306 (SC) relied upon by the assessee in the assessment proceedings was pertaining to Assessment Year 1950-51 during which period Sec. 72 of the Act, the relevant provision in question, was not on the statute. 6. In the above background, the learned representative for the assessee has made varied submissions. Firstly, it is pointed out that the very b…

Gouranga Cement Pvt. Ltd., Barakar vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Bankura

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in terms of above

ITA 330/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2018AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 72

…d on by the assessee and assessable to tax for that assessment year', the same can be set off against loss under the head profits and gains of business or profession carried forward from earlier years. In the case of CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965]57 ITR 306 (SC), the Supreme Court held that as long as the profits and gains are in the nature of business profits and gains, and even if these profits are liable to be taxed under a head other than income from business and profession, the loss carried forward can be set off against such profits of the assessee. In that view of the matter, the objection rai…

DCIT-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2817/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(2), 27 Bkc, G Block, Bandra Mumbai R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, (East), Mumbai-400 023 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaack4409J

For Appellant: Farrokh V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: B. Sriniwas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…o this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court relied upon following decisions:- i. Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR (AT) 86 (Delhi) [SB] (para 15) ii. CIT v. Chugandas and Co. [1964] 55 ITR 17 (SC) (para 14) iii. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) (para 14) iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para 15) Cross Objection No. 38/Mum/2018 viii. CIT…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Canara Bank Securities Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), M/S Canara Bank Securities Room No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Maker Chamber-Iii, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacg2218H

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 56

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ सी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), M/s Canara Bank Securities Room No.553, 5th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 7th Floor, Maker Chamber-III, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAACG2218H राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri H.N.Singh CIT-DR "नधा"रती क" ओर…

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the AO are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: R P Meena

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36

…to this conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court relied upon following decisions:- i. Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR (AT) 86 (Delhi) [SB] (para 15) ii. CIT v. Chugandas and Co. [1964] 55 ITR 17 (SC) (para 14) iii. CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) (para 14) iv. CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 97 (Guj) (para 15) v. CIT v.Holcim India (P.) Ltd.(I.T.A.No.486 of 2014 decided on 5- 9-2014) (para 15) vi. CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) (para 15) vii. CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Incl. [2015] 4 ITR-OL 246 (P&H) (para 15) viii. CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 1…

M.K. Creations, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3885/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Years: 2010-11 M/S M.K. Creations, Income Tax Officer C/O- Shankarlal Jain & Ward-14(1)(3), बनाम/ Associates, Earnest House, Vs. 12, Engineer Building, Nariman Point, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pa No.:-Aaafm2004J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Shankarlal Jain Shri Suman Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 06/04/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 50Section 72

…5 TTJ 411 (Vishkaha.) It was also contended that the nature of income is to be decided on commercial principles and not based on classification of income u/s 14 of the Act for which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Cocanada Radhaswamy Bank ltd. 57 ITR 306 (SC), CIT vs Ramnath Goenka 259 ITR 26 (Mad.), CIT vs Excellent Commercial Enterprices and Investment Ltd. 282 ITR 423 (Del.), Southern Travels vs ACIT 232 taxman 689 (Del.) and Lavish Apartment Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT 210 taxman 9 (Del.). On the other hand, Shri Suman Kumar, Ld. DR, defended the 3 M/s M. K. Creations addition confirmed by the Ld. Com…

Priya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD), Cir 2(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated hereinabove and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3231/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Priya Ltd. Dcit(Osd), Circle-2(3), 209-210, Kimatraj Building बनाम/ R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, 02 Floor, 77/79 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(Osd), Priya Ltd. 209-210, Kimatraj Building Circle-2(3), बनाम/ 02 Floor, 77/79 R. No. 552, 5Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacp2210Q

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260A

…f Income-tax [2015] 60 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) which answered the question in the affirmative. Mr. Vohra has also placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Chugandas & Co. [1964] 55 ITR 17 (SC) and CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) which hold that where shares were held as business investment, the dividend income though assessable to tax under the head ‘income from other sources,’ would retain its character as business income for all intents and purposes. In the latter decision it was specifically held that the income from securities which forms part of the Assessee’s t…

Sky Lite Electro Fixtures P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4893/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik (CIT-DR)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 50

…on by the assessee and assessable to tax for that assessment year", the same can be set off against loss under the head profits and gains of business or profession carried forward from earlier years. In the case of CIT vs. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 306 (SC), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of this distinction and the implications of these provisions regarding carry forward and set off of business loss. It was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while one set of provisions, i.e., the nature of loss incurred by the assessee, classifies the same on the basis of income bei…

The Sri Kannikaparameshwari Co-Op Bank Limited, Davangere vs. Income-Tax Officer, Davangere

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1364/BANG/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…t of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs ACIT 356 ITR 549. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Cocanada 8 ITA No.1364(Bang)2016 Radhaswami Bank Ltd., 57 ITR 306(SC). Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Baroda Peoples Co-Op. Bank Ltd., 280 ITR 282 (Guj.) 13. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 14. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the dispute in the present case is regarding the…

Ghanshyam Harjivandas Patadia, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3643/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 3643/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 Mr. Ghanshyam The Ito-25(3)(1), बनाम/ Harjivandas Patadia, Mumbai Vs. C/O Sweet Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., 193, Bubna House, 1St Floor, S.V. Road, Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpp 4713A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148

…nding for in Bombay High Court for its final Order. For your ready reference we submit an important law on commercial principles: The Act has got to be interpreted according to commercial principles and the understanding of practical businessmen.- (1965) 57 ITR 306 (SC) Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. In computing profits or losses for purpose of income tax, commercial principles or practices commonly used by accountants must be observed and applied. Thus, in working out capital gains or losses, the principles that have to be applied are those which are a part of commercial practice or those to which an ordi…

ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai vs. Lake View Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4495/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3409/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Lake View Developers Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), बनाम/ 514, Dalamal Towers, Mumbai 211 F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Assessee) : (Revenue) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4495/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Lake View Developers Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4496/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Addl. Cit, Range 12(3), Omega Associates, बनाम/ Mumbai 514, Dalamal Tower, 211-F.P.J. Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl 0589 R (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Chetan Karia Revenue By Assessee By : Shri R. P. Rastogi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 28.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Rastogi

Section 143(3)Section 22

…nce of depreciation against rental income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 4. Before us, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) relied on Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC); CIT vs. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC); Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 (SC); and CIT vs. Chugandas & Co. [1965] 55 ITR 17 (SC). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), besides seeking to distinguish the said reliance, relied on East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. vs. CIT [1961] 42 ITR 49 (SC). Assessee’s Appeal (in ITA No. 3409/M…

Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Sandeep Jhanwar and Hitendra Bhandari –AR.sFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bare-DR

Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4170/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

DCIT 7(1), Mumbai vs. PAN India Network Infravest P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3378/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth-ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ जी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2010-11 DCIT, M/s Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, EMCA House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 PAN No.AAACG3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Ms. Amrita Misra -DR ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by Shri Madhur Agarwal 06/04/2016 सुनवाई क" ता…

Cifco Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7875/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7875/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2006-07) Cifco Ltd, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 3(1)(1), Bhupen Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Dalal Street, M K Road, Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400023 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 50

…e the income from business, the different heads of income being only the classification prescribed by the Indian Income tax Act for computation of income.” The same view was expressed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd (1965)(57 ITR 306). Hence, in order to claim set off of brought forward business loss, it is required to be shown that the income taxed under any other head actually constitutes Business income. 16. In the instant case, the sale proceeds realized over and above the cost of asset, in our view, cannot be categorized as business income under commercial principles; ra…

Ge Capital Transportation Financial Sevices Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1)

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2190/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2190/Del/2006 (Assessment Year-2001-02)

…t has public deposits. It is immaterial that they are shown under the classification “investment”. True nature of the investment be taken into consideration. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT VS. Cocanada Radheswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC) and the other decisions are also in support of the said view that the assessee is entitled to the claim of diminution in the value of securities which are held for the purpose of its business. ITA No. 2069/Del/06 15. The Ld. DR submitted that para 6 of the AO’s order clearly mentions that two portfolios has been kept by the assessee company…

DCIT, Circle-12(1) vs. G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2069/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2190/Del/2006 (Assessment Year-2001-02)