K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT

262 ITR 669High Court2003#5448 most cited

What is K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT authority for?

Interest earned on a compulsory deposit of sale receipts as a condition for obtaining a bank loan is not business income for the purposes of Section 80HHC.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2021.

Also referred to as

K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT · 262 ITR 669 · 126 ITD 1 · Section 80HHC · business income · interest on deposit · compulsory deposit · sale receipts · bank loan

Also reported as

126 ITD 1

Judgments citing K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT

QUADRO INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2617/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Aug 2021AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

…of company, prior to commencement of business, has to be brought to tax as ‘Income from Other Sources’ u/s. 57 of the Act. brought to tax as ‘Income from Other Sources’ u/s. 57 of the Act. 5.5.2 In K. Ravindranathan In K. Ravindranathan Nair v. Dy. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 669 / 129 Taxman 811 {Ker.), an Nair v. Dy. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 669 / 129 Taxman 811 {Ker.), an assessee who was engaged in export claimed relief under section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer assessee who was engaged in export claimed relief under section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer assessee who was engaged in export claimed relief under section 80HHC.…

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 201/AGR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

…was excluded from the purview of export profits in CIT vs. Mrrrena Creations, 330 ITR 199(Delhi) following CIT vs Shri Ram Honda Power equip, 289 ITR 475 (Delhi) (2007). Similar view is held by Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair vs DCIT, 262 ITR 669 (2003). In view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., it is held that the interest income is required to be taxed as "Income from Other Sources" under section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is there…

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

ITA 200/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 145Section 271(1)Section 44A

…was excluded from the purview of export profits in CIT vs. Mrrrena Creations, 330 ITR 199(Delhi) following CIT vs Shri Ram Honda Power equip, 289 ITR 475 (Delhi) (2007). Similar view is held by Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair vs DCIT, 262 ITR 669 (2003). In view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., it is held that the interest income is required to be taxed as "Income from Other Sources" under section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is there…

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…war Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann. Com 167 (Bom) 8. Kakinada SEZ (P.) Ltd. [2013] 31 taxmann.com 165 (Hyd. Tri.) 9. Hotel Queen Road (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2012] 14 ITR (T) 124 (Del. Tri.) 10. MKR Frozen Food Exports Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 1 (Del.) 11. Conventional Fastners vs. CIT 2018-TIOL-202-SC-IT 12. CIT vs. Jyoti Apparels [2007] 209 CTR 288 (Del.) 13. CIT vs. Mereena Creations [2011] 330 ITR 199 (Del.) 14. CIT vs. Rassi Cement Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 554 (AP) 12. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT, Delhi – IV, New Del…

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…war Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann. Com 167 (Bom) 8. Kakinada SEZ (P.) Ltd. [2013] 31 taxmann.com 165 (Hyd. Tri.) 9. Hotel Queen Road (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2012] 14 ITR (T) 124 (Del. Tri.) 10. MKR Frozen Food Exports Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 1 (Del.) 11. Conventional Fastners vs. CIT 2018-TIOL-202-SC-IT 12. CIT vs. Jyoti Apparels [2007] 209 CTR 288 (Del.) 13. CIT vs. Mereena Creations [2011] 330 ITR 199 (Del.) 14. CIT vs. Rassi Cement Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 554 (AP) 12. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT, Delhi – IV, New Del…

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…war Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann. Com 167 (Bom) 8. Kakinada SEZ (P.) Ltd. [2013] 31 taxmann.com 165 (Hyd. Tri.) 9. Hotel Queen Road (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2012] 14 ITR (T) 124 (Del. Tri.) 10. MKR Frozen Food Exports Ltd. vs. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 1 (Del.) 11. Conventional Fastners vs. CIT 2018-TIOL-202-SC-IT 12. CIT vs. Jyoti Apparels [2007] 209 CTR 288 (Del.) 13. CIT vs. Mereena Creations [2011] 330 ITR 199 (Del.) 14. CIT vs. Rassi Cement Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 554 (AP) 12. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The CIT, Delhi – IV, New Del…

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 426/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…. The AO cannot either wait indefinitely for the assessee to file a return, and neither is there any occasion for him to issue (and serve) notice u/s. 148 again, which would require a separate cause of action, as explained in Avneesh Kumar Singh v. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 1 (Agra)(TM). He, accordingly, rightly proceeded with the matter, issuing a notice u/s. 142(1). This is precisely what the ld. CIT(A) has held. Not so doing would be to ascribe the AO with prescience, to know that the assesse shall, long after the issue of the notice u/s. 148(1|), and the time provided thereby, file the return, claiming, in the appel…

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S. JUBILANT ORGANOSYES LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…99 where it is held to be considered as „business income‟ and not „income from other sources‟. 27. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that honourable Supreme Court of India has already decided above issue in case of liberty India and in 262 ITR 669 in favour of revenue. It was further stated that honourable Supreme Court with respect to deduction of these business income as income derived from industrial undertaking has already been considered in Liberty India vs. CIT 183 taxmann 349. It was therefore contested that though decision has been taken in earlier years in favour of assessee but i…

ACIT, MORADABAD vs. M/S JUBLIANT ORGANOSYS LTD., UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…99 where it is held to be considered as „business income‟ and not „income from other sources‟. 27. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that honourable Supreme Court of India has already decided above issue in case of liberty India and in 262 ITR 669 in favour of revenue. It was further stated that honourable Supreme Court with respect to deduction of these business income as income derived from industrial undertaking has already been considered in Liberty India vs. CIT 183 taxmann 349. It was therefore contested that though decision has been taken in earlier years in favour of assessee but i…

JUBILANT ORGANOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, MORADABAD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…99 where it is held to be considered as „business income‟ and not „income from other sources‟. 27. The learned departmental representative vehemently stated that honourable Supreme Court of India has already decided above issue in case of liberty India and in 262 ITR 669 in favour of revenue. It was further stated that honourable Supreme Court with respect to deduction of these business income as income derived from industrial undertaking has already been considered in Liberty India vs. CIT 183 taxmann 349. It was therefore contested that though decision has been taken in earlier years in favour of assessee but i…

M/S NICE TELECOM,MANSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 153/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 153/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. I. S. Khurana (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…mption in law, i.e., of there being a proper service in due 7 Nice Telecom v. ITO course, is applicable only where the notice is sent by registered post along with acknowledgement due (RPAD), even as held by the tribunal in Avneesh Kumar Singh v. ITO [2010] 126 ITD 1 (Agra) (TM) (copy on record at pgs. 16-31 of the case law compilation). True, the statutory presumption u/s. 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would apply only where the service has been made through registered post. The impugned order is silent on this aspect. No presumption of it being sent either per registered post or otherwise could be drawn…

SAFEFLEX INTERNATIONAL LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year

ITA 696/JPR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur. Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) Was Partially Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Vide Order Dated 04-04-2016. The Said Order Was Received By The Company On 17-04-2016 & Accordingly, It Was Supposed To File The Appeal Within 60 Days I.E. By16-06-2016. The Present Appeal Is Delayed By 22 Days.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 43BSection 68Section 69

…been expressed in other decisions particularly Apex Court’s decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies and Fertilizers and also in CIT vs Auto Kast Ltd 248 ITR 110 (SC), CIT vs V. Goppinathan, Consolidated Fibres vs CIT and K Ravindranatham v/s DCIT (Asstt.) 262 ITR 669. All the above judicial pronouncement support the view that the interest income is income from other sources. This issue was also raised during the scrutiny assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the AO has held that interest on FDRs is income from other sources. This issue was also raised during the scrutiny assessment proceeding for A.…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.539, 1474 & 1475/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. International Stones India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.55/12, Alankar Apartments, Circle 11(4), Flat No.1, 39th Cross, Bangalore. 14th Main, Jayanagar 4th T Block Bangalore – 560 041. PAN: AABCI 1821R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. International Stones In…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.539, 1474 & 1475/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. International Stones India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.55/12, Alankar Apartments, Circle 11(4), Flat No.1, 39th Cross, Bangalore. 14th Main, Jayanagar 4th T Block Bangalore – 560 041. PAN: AABCI 1821R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. International Stones In…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.539, 1474 & 1475/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. International Stones India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.55/12, Alankar Apartments, Circle 11(4), Flat No.1, 39th Cross, Bangalore. 14th Main, Jayanagar 4th T Block Bangalore – 560 041. PAN: AABCI 1821R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. International Stones In…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.539, 1474 & 1475/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. International Stones India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.55/12, Alankar Apartments, Circle 11(4), Flat No.1, 39th Cross, Bangalore. 14th Main, Jayanagar 4th T Block Bangalore – 560 041. PAN: AABCI 1821R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. International Stones In…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.539, 1474 & 1475/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. International Stones India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, No.55/12, Alankar Apartments, Circle 11(4), Flat No.1, 39th Cross, Bangalore. 14th Main, Jayanagar 4th T Block Bangalore – 560 041. PAN: AABCI 1821R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 608 & 1332/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. International Stones In…

CIT vs. NECTAR LIFESCIENCES LTD

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/1543/2010HC Delhi20 Oct 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

…made with earlier years surplus funds if the assessee. On this issue there is settled position of law in view of the various judicial pronouncements including the judgment of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravinderanathan Nair Vs. DCIT 262 ITR 669, which has been affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the assessee against the judgment, the interest income on FDR‟s amount to Rs.42,42,898/- is treated as income of the assessee under the head “Income from other sources” and accordingly, disallowed for the purpose of benefit of deduction u/s 80 HHC within…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/113/2011HC Telangana20 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 80H

…elies on the decision in C.I.T. v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons, [1993] 203 ITR 881. ITA 113/2011 4 3. The Revenue relies on Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. C.I.T., [1997] 227 ITR 172, K.Ravindranathan Nair v. Deputy C.I.T., [2003] 262 ITR 669 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra). 4. Sri.P.K.Raveendranatha Menon, learned Senior Counsel, Government of India (Taxes) would point out from K.Ravindranathan Nair that in a similar case of deposits made for opening of letters of credit, the Court found that it cannot be said to be a profit derived from exports. The position herein is i…

C.I.T vs. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN

ITA - 888 / 2007HC Delhi25 Jan 2008
Section 37Section 80H

…rt business. This Court held, on a consideration of the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Nanji Topanbhai and Co. vs. Asst. Commissioner of S Ors. (2000) 243 ITR Income K.Rabindranathan Nair vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) & Anr. (2003) 262 ITR 669 1 ITA No.888/2007 Page 2 of 7 ![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg) and Urban Stanislaus Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 10, that in both the situations, the interest earned by the Assessee on the fixed deposits would have to be treated as income from other sources and not business income. - 5. In paragraph 37 of the decision, this C…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2