United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT

32 ITR 688Supreme Court of India1957#989 most cited

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.

109

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2005 to 2026.

Also referred to as

United Commercial Bank v. CIT · 32 ITR 688 · heads of income mutually exclusive · Section 14 · Section 56 · income classification · assessment of income heads · specific head of income · residuary head income tax · income from property assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 14Section 56Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 46section 49interest on securitiessection 55transfer of capital assetprofits and gains of business or professionsection 48section 45section 56fair market valueincome from other sources

Judgments citing United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jose Thomas

ITA/56/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…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…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gracy Babu

ITA/48/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…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…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reena Jose

ITA/47/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…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…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt.Gracy Babu

ITA/54/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…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…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jose Thomas

ITA/46/2020HC Kerala03 Apr 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

For Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…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…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 87/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ooks, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 27…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 86/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ooks, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 27…

M/S Vatsalya Builders & Development Pvt Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 85/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ooks, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 27…

M/S Vatsalya Builders, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Centarl Circle 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 210/NAG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.85 To 87 & 210/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. Vatsalya Builders & Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1(2), Nagpur. 202, Ganesh Chambers, Dhantoli, Nagpur- 440012. Pan : Aabcv6745K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.02.2018 & 22.06.2018 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 To 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Four Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.85/Nag/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ooks, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business”. 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. D. P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P.) Ltd., 273 ITR 1 (SC) and in the case of United Commercial Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 688 (SC) held that the provisions of the Income Tax Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, 291 ITR 258 (Madras) as well as the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., 219 Taxman 27…

Vishan Raj Jain (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1 (2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Vishan Raj Jain (Huf) Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) 6-3-650, G7 6-3-650, G7, Aaykar Bhawan Maheswari Chambers Opp:L.B.Stadium Somajiguda Basheer Bagh Telangana-500 082 Hyderabad-500 004

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ection 45 cannot be applied, it is not open to the Department to impose tax on such capital receipt by the assessee under any other Section. This Court, as early as in 1957 had, in United Commercial Bank Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax., West Bengal (1957) 32 ITR 688, held that the heads of income provided for in the Sections of the 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 for the purposes of…

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2937/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 18

…v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306, that income from securities can also come under section 28 as income from business. This judgment is very important. It analyses the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd.'s case [1957] 32 ITR 688, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd.'s case [1991] 187 ITR 541. It is true that once an income falls under section 18, it cannot come under section 28. However, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.'s case [1965] 57 ITR 306, income from securities treated as trading assets can come under se…

T vs. Finance & Services Limited, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1174/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

…so received by the assessee would assume the character of same business assets as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cocanada Radhasoami Bank Ltd. 57 ITR 306; Express Newspapers Ltd. 53 ITR 250; Liquidators of Pursa Ltd. 25 ITR 265; United Commercial Bank Ltd. 32 ITR 688. 3.3 In all these cases, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that origin of the asset would determine the nature of the asset. If the asset came into being as a capital asset of the assessee, it continues to be capital asset irrespective of how the proceeds therefrom are utilized. Similarly, if the origin of the asset was from a business source,…

ACIT Central-2 Indore, Indore vs. Shri .Gaurav Tekriwal, Indore

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ACPPT 1628 Q Assessee by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-o…

Shivam Developers, Godadra vs. ITO, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Shivam Developers, Vs. The Pr. Cit-2, 141, Khodiyar Residency, Surat. Godadra, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acffs4002D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2022

Section 115Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40Section 69A

…andu Bros.Chembur P. Ltd.,(supra) has dealt with this very issue while deciding the treatment to be given to a transaction of surrender of tenancy right. The earlier decisions of the Apex Court commencing from case of United Commercial Bank Ltd.Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC) have been considered by the Apex Court and, hence, it is not necessary to repeat the same. Suffice it to state that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the two judgments of this Court as submitted by the…

Commissioner of Income Tax TDS vs. M/S Mewar Hospital Pvt Ltd

ITA/6/2021HC Rajasthan01 Nov 2022

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…e subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 130/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…e subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…e subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 288/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…e subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income…

M/S. Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No Ita No.114/Ctk/2014: Assessment Year Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Dilip Kr. Mohanty/Pradyumna Kumar Sahu

…e subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income…