K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT

262 ITR 669High Court2003#5354 most cited

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

Interest received from bank deposits is taxable under the residuary head when it lacks a direct or proximate connection to the assessee's business operations.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2021.

Also referred to as

K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT · interest income · bank deposits · business connection · taxable income · residuary head · direct connection · proximate connection

Also reported as

126 ITD 1

Judgments citing K. Ravindramatham Nair v. Dy. CIT

M/S Kashmir Arts vs. Commissioner of Income Tax VII

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/84/2005HC Delhi12 Oct 2007

Bench: It Under Section 254(2) Of The Act Seeking Rectification Of Its Order Dated 30Th September, 2003 By Which It Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal. 1.2 It Requires To Be Noticed That The Appellant Had Challenged The Main Order Dated 30Th September, 2003 Passed By The Tribunal Dismissing Ita No. 2007:Dhc:1282-Db

Section 143Section 254(2)Section 260Section 80Section 80H

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Orders reserved: 4th October, 2007 Date of decision: 12th October, 2007 + ITA No. 84 of 2005 M/S KASHMIR ARTS ..... Appellant Through Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VII ..... Respondent Through Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes…

Commissioner of Income Tax-V N vs. Damanjit Singh

ITA/166/2000HC Delhi12 Jan 2007

…(iii) CIT v. Jose Thomas (2002) 253 ITR 553 (iv) CIT v. Abad Fisheries (2002) 258 ITR 641 (v) Southern Cashew Exports v. DCIT (2003) 130 Taxman 203 (vi) ACIT v. South Indian Produce Co. (2003) 262 ITR 20 (vii) K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 669 (viii) Urban Stanislaus Co. v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 10 (ix) GTN Textiles v. DCIT (2005) 279 ITR 72. 15. In particular, reference may be made to the observations in Urban Stanislaus Co. where the assessee had contended that as a condition for obtaining a loan from the bank, 20% of the sale receipts had to be deposited by way of security.…