PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala

391 ITR 218High Court2017#419 most cited

What is PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala authority for?

Income from shares and securities held by banks as stock-in-trade constitutes business income, hence Section 14A disallowance is not attracted. Further, any disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year.

213

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala · Section 14A disallowance · shares and securities held by bank · stock-in-trade · income from securities business income · disallowance under Section 14A limit · disallowance cannot exceed exempt income · Rule 8D application disallowance · Supreme Court dismissal of SLP · 391 ITR 218

Also reported as

78 Taxmann.com 3259 Taxmann 315

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 115JBSection 8DSection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 143(3)Section 90Section 91

Issues it is cited on

section 43dsection 36(2)(v)section 36(1)(viii)section 10(34)section 36(1)(viia)interest on securitiessection 36(2)prohibited by lawdisallowance under section 14asection 129section 115jb(2)section 36(1)(vii)

Judgments citing PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI JAGADISH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 State Bank of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Financial Reporting & Taxation Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Dept. Mumbai 3rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 [PAN: AAACS8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. State Bank of India of Income-tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai Dept. 3rd Floor, Corpor…

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 6761/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…unal. We record that the assessee had offered voluntary disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1.30 crores, which is not been disturbed by the Tribunal. 5. The tax appeal is dismissed." 10.9 The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476) held that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income, a view also supported by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33). The Revenue's SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala has been dismissed on merits vide or…

NUVAMA WEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 6760/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Shri Ravikant Pathak
Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…ibunal. We record that the assessee had offered voluntary disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1.30 crores, which is not been disturbed by the Tribunal. 5. The tax appeal is dismissed." 10.9 The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court (CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 393 ITR 476) held that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income, a view also supported by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Cheminvest Limited vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33). The Revenue's SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court against the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala has been dismissed on merits vide or…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 1548/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…5/402 ITR 640/[201815 SCC 523. In this matter, the Supreme Court was concerned with a batch of appeals which also included a challenge to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017) 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Taxman 273/391 ITR 218 and the facts of the said case are para materia to the case in hand. In the case of State Bank of Patiala, (supra) the AO restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule 8-D and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. The CIT(A) issued a notice of enhancement…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1547/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…5/402 ITR 640/[201815 SCC 523. In this matter, the Supreme Court was concerned with a batch of appeals which also included a challenge to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017) 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Taxman 273/391 ITR 218 and the facts of the said case are para materia to the case in hand. In the case of State Bank of Patiala, (supra) the AO restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule 8-D and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. The CIT(A) issued a notice of enhancement…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1452/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…5/402 ITR 640/[201815 SCC 523. In this matter, the Supreme Court was concerned with a batch of appeals which also included a challenge to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017) 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Taxman 273/391 ITR 218 and the facts of the said case are para materia to the case in hand. In the case of State Bank of Patiala, (supra) the AO restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule 8-D and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. The CIT(A) issued a notice of enhancement…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

ITA 1451/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 32Section 90

…5/402 ITR 640/[201815 SCC 523. In this matter, the Supreme Court was concerned with a batch of appeals which also included a challenge to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Pr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017) 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Taxman 273/391 ITR 218 and the facts of the said case are para materia to the case in hand. In the case of State Bank of Patiala, (supra) the AO restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule 8-D and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. The CIT(A) issued a notice of enhancement…

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…refore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned.[Para 39] ■ It is noted from the facts in the Pr. CIT. v State Bank of Patiala [2017] 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Тахтап 273/391 ITR 218 (Punj. & Har.) case that the Assessing Officer, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried o…

M/S COAL INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

…refore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned.[Para 39] ■ It is noted from the facts in the Pr. CIT. v State Bank of Patiala [2017] 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Тахтап 273/391 ITR 218 (Punj. & Har.) case that the Assessing Officer, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried o…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

…refore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned.[Para 39] ■ It is noted from the facts in the Pr. CIT. v State Bank of Patiala [2017] 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Тахтап 273/391 ITR 218 (Punj. & Har.) case that the Assessing Officer, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried o…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1549/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate and Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of India Assistant Commissioner of 8th Floor, Income-tax-2(1)(1), Taxation Department, Star Mumbai Vs. House, C-5, 'G'-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AAACB0472C) (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Bank Of India Income-tax-2(1)(1), 8th Floor, Mumbai Vs. Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, 'G'-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AAACB0472C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pres…

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1397/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 90

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1397/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bank Of India 8th Floor, Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, 'G'-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 (PAN: AAACB0472C) (Assessee) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(1)(1), Mumbai (Respondent) ITA No. 1549/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-2(1)(1), Mumbai Bank Of India 8th Floor, Vs. Taxation Department, Star House, C-5, 'G'-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 40005…

STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed by way of remand to Tribunal which would pass fresh

ITA/390/2011HC Punjab & Haryana03 Dec 2025

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Section 14ASection 41(4)

…s are involved in these appeals. First issue relates to disallowance under Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘1961 Act’) on the securities held in stock. This issue stands settled by this Court in “Principle CIT Vs. State of Patiala”, (2017) 391 ITR 218 (P&H). The judgment of this Court stands affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax”, 2018 SCC Online SC 250. 3. The second issue relates to applicability of Section 41(4) read with 36(1)(vii) of 1961 Act with respect to recovery of bad debts which were written off in the earlier assessme…

AVKAR URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.715/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Avkar Urban Co-Op. Credit Soc. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle – 3(3), 113-114, Sunrise Chambers, Surat Varachha Road, Mini Bazar, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa8341B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Aakash Bakashwala, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.715/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Avkar Urban Co-op. Credit Soc. Vs. ACIT, Ltd., Circle – 3(3), 113-114, sunrise Chambers, Surat Varachha Road, Mini Bazar, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAA8341B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Aakash Bakashwala, CA Respondent by Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA P…

MIRAE ASSET CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2099/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Poddar, & Shreyas SardesaiFor Respondent: 14.10.2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250

…325-482 ITR 640/2018) 15 SCC 523. In this matter, the Supreme Court was concerned with a batch of appeals which also included a challenge to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court P. CIT. Stan Bank of Patiala [2017] 78 taxmann.com 3/245 Taxman 273/391 ITR 218 and the facts of the said case are para materia to the cast in hand. In the case of State Bank of Patiala, (supra) the AO restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in rule -D and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. The CIT(A) issued a notice of enhancement u…

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 433/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…ome, any disallowance u/s 14A of I. T. Act is impermissible. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. GVK Project & Technical Services Ltd. [2019] 106 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi). In the case of Pr.CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala 391 ITR 218 (P&H), it was held by Hon'ble High Court that disallowance u/s 14A of I. T. Act cannot exceed exempt income. In the case of DCIT vs. UP Power Corpn. Ltd. (order dated 04/10/2019 in I.T.A. No.152/Lkw/2017) it has been held by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow, following order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shivam Motors (P…

DCIT CC-3(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ESSAR PORTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed, being bereft of merit and devoid of substance

ITA 4103/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bledcit Cc 3(4), Mumbai Essar Ports Limited 11, Keshavrao Khadye Marg 613, Kautilya Bhawan G Clock Mahalaxmi Vs Bkc Bandra, Mumbai – 400034 Mumbai – 400051, Maharastra Maharastra

For Appellant: Shri Tarang MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

…e is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Joint Investments Vs. CIT (372 ITR694) (Del). Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Pr. CIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala (2017) 393 ITR 476 (P & H). The Special Leave Petition (for short "SLP") filed by the revenue against the aforesaid the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal CIT, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala (2018) 259 Taxman 314 (SC). disallowance under Sec. 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt in…

ACIT CIRCLE ,3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ndividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the intention of the\nassessee is to trade in shares to earn profits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court\napproved the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of\nPCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218 albiet for a different reason that\nprovisions of section 144 would not get attracted where the shares are held in\n'stock-in-trade'\nFollowing the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd.\n(supra), the Tribunal in the case of Asstt.CIT vs. UCO Bank (supra), Punjab\nNational Bank vs. ACI (supra) and IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra…

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

…ndividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the intention of the\nassessee is to trade in shares to earn profits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court\napproved the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of\nPCIT vs. State Bank of Patiala, 391 ITR 218 albiet for a different reason that\nprovisions of section 144 would not get attracted where the shares are held in\n'stock-in-trade'\nFollowing the judgment rendered in the case of Maxopp Investment P. Ltd.\n(supra), the Tribunal in the case of Asstt.CIT vs. UCO Bank (supra), Punjab\nNational Bank vs. ACI (supra) and IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT(supra…

Showing 1–20 of 213 · Page 1 of 11

...