Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 93High Court2006#15598 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Judgments citing Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. v. CIT

SHRIRAM FIANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 2635/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2635/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Finance Limited, The Deputy Commissioner (Since Shriram City Union Finance Vs. Of Income Tax, Limited Amalgamated With Corporate Circle 3(1), Shriram Transport Finance Co. Chennai. Ltd. & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Ltd.,) Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaacs 7703H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…ame have to be treated as stock-in-trade and hence, the loss on sale of investments / diminution in value of investments is an allowable deduction. At this juncture, it is apropos to refer to the decision of this court in Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd v. CIT [(2006) 284 ITR 93 (Mad)], wherein, after following the various decisions of the supreme court as well as the High Courts, it was held that the Government securities held by the assessee were stock-in-trade. The relevant passage of the same is extracted below: :- 8 -: 6. The learned counsel for the assessee relies on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Unit…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IFCI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1359/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…stock in trade of the assessee and was revenue in nature. Following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in India Cements Ltd vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52(SC) and judgment of the Honourable High Court of Madras in Lakshmi Vilas Bank vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 93 the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the deduction. In view of this the order of the learned CIT – A is confirmed on this ground and ground of appeal is dismissed. 28 Ground number 7 is against the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 3,837,672 on account of claim of deduction of amount withdrawn from benevolent reserve fund. The fact shows that the assessee h…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IFCI, NEW DELHI

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2934/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 10Section 14Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35D

…stock in trade of the assessee and was revenue in nature. Following the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in India Cements Ltd vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52(SC) and judgment of the Honourable High Court of Madras in Lakshmi Vilas Bank vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 93 the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the deduction. In view of this the order of the learned CIT – A is confirmed on this ground and ground of appeal is dismissed. 28 Ground number 7 is against the deletion of disallowance of ₹ 3,837,672 on account of claim of deduction of amount withdrawn from benevolent reserve fund. The fact shows that the assessee h…

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHENNAI vs. MURASOLI MARAN FAMILY TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2272/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Devanathan,Advocate
Section 147Section 161Section 167Section 47

…the Tribunal was not justified in coming to an entirely different and contrary conclusion on the same set of facts.” ITA Nos. 2271 & 2272/Mds/2017 8 Further, once again, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT in [2006] 284 ITR 93 (Mad) wherein held that the Tribunal having decided the case in earlier years in favour of assessee on identical facts, it is not proper for the Tribunal to take a different view for the subsequent year on the same set of facts. 6.2 In view of the above, I am inclined to decide the issue in favour of assessee and against the Department, since…

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHENNAI vs. MURASOLI MARAN FAMILY TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 2271/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Devanathan,Advocate
Section 147Section 161Section 167Section 47

…the Tribunal was not justified in coming to an entirely different and contrary conclusion on the same set of facts.” ITA Nos. 2271 & 2272/Mds/2017 8 Further, once again, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT in [2006] 284 ITR 93 (Mad) wherein held that the Tribunal having decided the case in earlier years in favour of assessee on identical facts, it is not proper for the Tribunal to take a different view for the subsequent year on the same set of facts. 6.2 In view of the above, I am inclined to decide the issue in favour of assessee and against the Department, since…

M/S. SABARI ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.N.Madhavan,, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: 15.11.2017

…ncy in the income tax proceedings from year to year as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. L. G. Ramamurthi reported in [1977] 110 ITR 453 (Mad), which was subsequently followed in the case of Lakshmi Vilas Bank LTD. Vs. CIT in [2006] 284 ITR 93 (Mad). Being so, I am of the opinion that income declared by the assessee to be considered as income from business only, not from income from house property. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 05th December, 2017. (चं" पूजार") (CHANDRA POOJARI) लेखा सद"य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated the 05th December, 2…

Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 93) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax