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.

Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/749/2014HC Delhi02 Sept 2015

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

…ITA No. 749 of 2014 Page 1 of 14 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 16. + ITA 749/2014 CHEMINVEST LIMITED ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Respondent Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 02.09.2015 1. This is an appeal filed by…

Eicher Goodearth Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent

ITA - 54 / 2000HC Delhi14 May 2015

Section 36Section 5Section 56Section 57Section 80ASection 80M

…ome Tax Act, 1961. 5. The second question according to us does not arise at all - a view shared by counsel for both the parties. 6. Counsel for the assessee relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd., (1965) 57 ITR 306 and United Commercial Bank v. CIT, (1957) 32 ITR 688. These decisions emphasized that the head of income merely denotes 2015:DHC:4310-DB ITA 54/2000 Page 3 or characterizes the amount received as income but does not delineate the income for the purpose of its treatment especially when it relates to claim for interest. The assessee’s ar…

Eicher Goodearth Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent

ITA/54/2000HC Delhi14 May 2015

Section 36Section 5Section 56Section 57Section 80ASection 80M

M/s Lavish Apartment (P.) Ltd

ITA/254/2006HC Delhi23 Jul 2012

Section 72(1)

…ubstantially the same as Section 24 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the „old Act‟). Section 24 of the old Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in CIT, Andhra Pradesh v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd., (1965) 57 ITR 306. It was observed by Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) as under: - “A comparative study of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 24 yields the same result. While in sub-section (1) the expression “head” is used, in sub-section (2) the said expression is conspicuously omitted. This designed distinction brings out the intention of the legislature.…

CIT vs. Nalwa Investment Ltd

ITA/1345/2010HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 263Section 56

…aracter of the said income, which was business income' He referred to the following judgments in support of his arguments: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs' Chugandas &. Co. 55 ITR 17 (SC); (ii) Commissioner of lncome Tax Vs, Cocanada ' Radhaswami Bank Ltd. 57 ITR 306 (SC1,' (iii) Commissioner of lncome Tax Vs' Excellent Commerciat Enterprises'and Investment Ltd. 2A2lrR 423 (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amalgamations (P) Limited 226ITR 188 (SC) Mr. Vohra also invoked the. principles of consistency and referred to certain judgments in support of his submission. We have considered the rival submission. lt…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V N vs. Damanjit Singh

ITA/166/2000HC Delhi12 Jan 2007

…here money necessarily has to be invested for the sake of carrying on the business, income if earned would be business income. Reliance is place on CIT v. Madras Motors Ltd. 257 ITR 60 (Mad), Vellore Electric Company, CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. 57 ITR 306 (SC). 2007:DHC:9-DB 5.3. A further argument that arises in these cases is that where on account of the conditionalities imposed by the banker, the assessee, for the purposes of obtaining letters of credit, bank guarantees and overdraft facilities for the purposes of its export business is constrained to keep monies in fixed deposit the…