What is United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The heads of income specified in the Income Tax Act are mutually exclusive, requiring any item of income to be charged and computed solely under its specific statutory head, with Section 56 (Income from Other Sources) serving as a residuary provision.

How many judgments cite United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT?

109 judgments on BharatTax cite United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (32 ITR 688), spanning 2005 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 14, Section 56, Section 10(3), Section 132.

United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (32 ITR 688)

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…

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

…The restriction on management expenses is mandatory. The IRDA regulations do not merely allocate expense between shareholder and policyholder accounts but create a hard limit on the deductibility for tax purposes. In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 62 (SC), it was clarified that expenditures contrary to statutory rule or regulation cannot be allowed as deduction under business profits In CIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC), it was held that expenses incurred in violation of law (or to defeat the law) cannot be allowed, even if motivated by the exigencies of business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2…

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

…The restriction on management expenses is mandatory. The IRDA regulations do not merely allocate expense between shareholder and policyholder accounts but create a hard limit on the deductibility for tax purposes. In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 62 (SC), it was clarified that expenditures contrary to statutory rule or regulation cannot be allowed as deduction under business profits In CIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC), it was held that expenses incurred in violation of law (or to defeat the law) cannot be allowed, even if motivated by the exigencies of business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2…

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2803/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

…The restriction on management expenses is mandatory. The IRDA regulations do not merely allocate expense between shareholder and policyholder accounts but create a hard limit on the deductibility for tax purposes. In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 62 (SC), it was clarified that expenditures contrary to statutory rule or regulation cannot be allowed as deduction under business profits In CIT v. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC), it was held that expenses incurred in violation of law (or to defeat the law) cannot be allowed, even if motivated by the exigencies of business ITA Nos.: 2803, 2804, 2…

AURANGABAD DIVISION LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,AURANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3175/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3175/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aurangabad Divison Life V The Income Tax Officer, Insurance Employees Co-Op S Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. Credit Society Ltd., 11, Jeevan Prakash, Lic Office Building Adalat Road, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad -431005 Pan: Aaaaa2245A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Payal Rathi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 24.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56Section 66Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.3175/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aurangabad Divison Life V The Income Tax Officer, Insurance Employees Co-op s Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. Credit Society Ltd., 11, Jeevan Prakash, LIC Office Building Adalat Road, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad -431005 PAN: AAAAA2245A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by CA Payal Rathi (Virtual) Revenue by Shri Sadananda – JCIT Date of hea…

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R

Section 250

…rganization. We take strength from decisions Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT[1953] 24 ITR 506(SC); ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das[1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44/54 Taxman 499 (SC) and CIT v. Basant Rai Takht Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that each 'previous year' is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment and further, that the profits made; and the liabilities of losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year, unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, there i…

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 H&M Housing Finance & Deputy Commissioner Of Leasing Private Limited, Income Tax, C/62, 9Th Floor, Vibgyor Towers, Vs. Circle–7(1)(2), Bandra Kurla Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (East), M.K.Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabch4398E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Nishith Khatri Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi and Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR

…eme Court concluded that “the income from shops and stalls is income received from property and falls under the specific head described in section 9 and taxed accordingly”. This judgment, supported by earlier cases like United 7 Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (32 ITR 688) and others, and aligns with rulings from House of Lords in the case of Fry v. Salisbury House Estates Co. Ltd. (1930) AC 432 and Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in Commercial Properties Limited vs. CIT (1928) ILR 55 and prayed before the Bench that the assessee's case is covered by the same. 9. It was further submitted that both the AO and the Ld.CI…

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. In view of the stand taken by the Department before the High Court, we uphold the decision of the High Court. (13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under a specific head has to be computed f…

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. In view of the stand taken by the Department before the High Court, we uphold the decision of the High Court. (13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under a specific head has to be computed f…

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. In view of the stand taken by the Department before the High Court, we uphold the decision of the High Court. (13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under a specific head has to be computed f…

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. In view of the stand taken by the Department before the High Court, we uphold the decision of the High Court. (13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under a specific head has to be computed f…

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…the High Court was that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. In view of the stand taken by the Department before the High Court, we uphold the decision of the High Court. (13) In United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), it was held that the heads of income provided for in the sections of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually exclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. In other words, income derived from different sources falling under a specific head has to be computed f…

HORIZON DREAM HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5934/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 68

…me and\nthen specifies the different 5 heads of income. The income is\nto be taxed under the specific head of the income. Where an\nitem falls specifically under one head, it has to be charged\nunder that head and no other-United Commercial Bank Ltd.\nV. CIT (32 ITR 688) SC. As can be seen from the language of\nsec 56, one of the main planks of an income falling under this\nhead is if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the\nheads specified in section 14, items A to E. It follows that for\nany income to fall under other sources, first it has to pass the\ntest that such income can not fall under any ot…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/273/2012HC Telangana18 Feb 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A

…- - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF APRIL 2013 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR I.T.A. NO.273/2012 C/W. I.T.A. NOS. 274/2012, 275/2012, 276/2012, 374/2011 & 375/2011 In I.T.A. No.273/2012 BETWEEN : 1. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Central Revenue Building, Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 12(5), Bangalore. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, Adv.) AND : M/s.Velankani Informatio…

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. CI HOSPITALITY WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

ITA 449/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 253(3)

…In this regard, we take guidance from orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506 (SC), Income Tax Officer vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas 52 ITR 335 (SC), CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. (supra) and CIT v s. Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that for the purposes of assessment, every previous year is a distinct unit of time; and profits/losses made or after the relevant previous year is immaterial in assessing income of a particular year. (E.12) The learned CIT(A), in this impugned appellate order, has interfered with the assessment order based primarily, on o…

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-003291-003294 - 2009Supreme Court16 Oct 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 21

…2024 INSC 781 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 32913294 OF 2009 Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. … Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax … Respondent with Civil Appeal Nos.1120011201 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14451446 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.11202 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4843 of 2020) Civil Appeal No.11203 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7055 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.11204 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7404 of 2021) Civil Appeal No.11205 of 2024 (Arising out o…

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 960/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sridharan (Sr. Advocate), Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) & Shri P

Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 1lSection 2(24)(ix)Section 263Section 56(2)(ib)Section 58

…under an exclusive head cannot in any circumstances be charged under another head. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs CIT(l 960) 39 ITR l 14(SC) and United Commercial Bank Ltd Vs CIT, 32 ITR 688. 2.2 The CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that winning from Lotteries is classified as income u/s.2(24)(ix) of the Act. The same has to be assessed as "Income from other sources" as per the provisions of Sec.56(2)(ib). As per the Sec. 58( 4), the assessee is not entitled for any item of expenditure against winning from lotteries. The assessee…

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 958/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sridharan (Sr. Advocate), Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) & Shri P

Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 1lSection 2(24)(ix)Section 263Section 56(2)(ib)Section 58

…under an exclusive head cannot in any circumstances be charged under another head. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs CIT(l 960) 39 ITR l 14(SC) and United Commercial Bank Ltd Vs CIT, 32 ITR 688. 2.2 The CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that winning from Lotteries is classified as income u/s.2(24)(ix) of the Act. The same has to be assessed as "Income from other sources" as per the provisions of Sec.56(2)(ib). As per the Sec. 58( 4), the assessee is not entitled for any item of expenditure against winning from lotteries. The assessee…

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 24

…be said to treat them as landowner but as trader." 11. This court is conscious about indivisibility of the levy of income tax, which are neither general or specific for the purpose of any source of income, as held in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT[1957] 32 ITR 688. where the Supreme Court observed that: "No one of those sections can be treated to be general or specific for the purpose of any one particular source of income; they are all specific and deal with the various heads in which an item of income, profits and gains of an assessee falls. specifically under one head it has to be charged under that hea…

United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT

What is United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT

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

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

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

AURANGABAD DIVISION LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,AURANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

MRS. DEEPALI VIKKI AJMERA,MULUND vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

H & M HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(2), MUMBAI

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

HORIZON DREAM HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. CI HOSPITALITY WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , COIMBATORE vs. M/S POOJA MARKETING, MALAD

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI