CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

220 ITR 305Supreme Court of India1996#11298 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250

Judgments citing CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.

Shri Veershaiv Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Kolhapur vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 175/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 250

…y liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. In the present case there is no such finding that the deposit was forfeited or that at the end of t…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 606/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ry liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. In the present case there is no such finding that the deposit was forfeited or that at the end of t…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 605/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ry liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. In the present case there is no such finding that the deposit was forfeited or that at the end of t…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 604/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ry liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. In the present case there is no such finding that the deposit was forfeited or that at the end of t…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op .Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2611/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…ry liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. In the present case there is no such finding that the deposit was forfeited or that at the end of t…

The Peerless Gen.Fin and Investment Company Limited vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-001265-001265 - 2007Supreme Court09 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…ability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it became its own money. In the present case there is no such finding that the deposit was forfeited or that at the end of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Manipal Finance Corporation

ITA/150/2010HC Karnataka20 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 260Section 28Section 41

…e company and subsequently foregone by the depositor and cessation of bank liability does not constitute income contrary to Section 28(iv) read with Section 41 of the Act and the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank reported in 220 ITR 305 and in the case of T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Son Ltd. reported in 222 ITR 344? 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the matter could be disposed of on a short issue. He submits that the Tribunal followed the earlier orders in the case of the assessee as noted by it in paragraph No.6 of its order. Aggrieved by the said or…

National Securities Clearing Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 3650/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm National Securities Clearing Corporation Ltd. C-1, Block-G, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. Appellant (Pan: Aaacn2642L) Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-7(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Appellant By: Arvind Sonde Respondent By: Sanjeev Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2016

For Appellant: Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Sanjeev Jain, DR
Section 143(3)

…discussion, I find force in the arguments of the Assessing Officer. The various case laws referred to and relied upon by the appellant in written submission are not applicable to the peculiar facts of the appellant. In the case of CIT vs. Laxmivilas Bank Ltd. 220 ITR 305 (SC), it has been held that assessee bank in the course of its business purchased securities for its constituents on receiving certain percentage of face value called margin money in deposits and if constituents tads to pay the balance, margin money is forfeited and securities becomes property of the assessee. Such margin so forfeited is taxable…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Finance, Manipal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 634/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. . Appellant Vs. M/S Manipal Finance Corpn., Ltd., Manipal. . Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. PK Srihari, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

…res and debs foregone by the depositors/customers is similar to forfeiture of deposits and attains the character of revenue receipts, and hence, it becomes appellant’s income as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (220 ITR 305). The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that though the amount is not taxable in the year of receipt, the amount charges its character when the amount becomes appellant’s own money because of limitation or any other statutory or contractual rights as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. TV Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.…

CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (220 ITR 305) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax