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)

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 175/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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 173/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

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 84/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 114/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

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…

Bhima Jewellers vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/15/2021HC Kerala25 Aug 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S BHIMA JEWELLERSFor Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 115Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…not considered. Referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/0070/2005 [2005] 273 ITR 1 (SC); [2005] 193 CTR (SC) 578 and in Untied Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT MANU/SC/0060/1957 (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC) it was held that the Act does not envisage taxing of any income under any head not specified in section 14 of the Act and therefore there is no question of trying to read any conflict in the judgment of that court. 9. But the High Court of Gujarat itself in a still later decision in Shilpa Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra)…

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2339/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 45Section 50Section 54Section 54F

…eipt. But because we have held that section 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. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 (SC), 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 for the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Circle, Valsad vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, Valsad

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 699/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69A

…du 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…

M/S. Shubh Enterprise, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.317/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Shubh Enterprise Principal Commissioner Of Income V Tp Scheme No.14, Plot No.42, Opp. Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Recent Residency, Pal Village, Surat Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 6271 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 133Section 143Section 143(3)Section 184Section 263Section 40

…du 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 treat any conflict in the two judgments of this Court as submitted by the le…

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur vs. M/S.Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur

Appeal stands dismissed accordingly

ITA/304/2009HC Kerala13 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

For Appellant: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHURFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR

Section 260Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)

…ng to Rs.22,78,703/-? ii) in allowing the bad written off under Section 36(1) (vii) amounting to Rs.22,78,703/- 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank (32 ITR 688) followed in subsequent decisions of Supreme Court,- i) the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of broken period interest (Rs.1,15,86,754/-)? ITA NO. 304 OF 2009 -4- ii) The Tribunal is right in law interfering with the dis- allowance of broken period interest.…

Hussain Mohideen Ibrahim Sha, Chennai vs. Jacit, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 11BSection 133ASection 143(3)

…Sandu Bros.Chemhur 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 v. 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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 14Section 24

…, 1961. Each head of income specified u/s 14 would arise from a particular source, which determines the nature of the receipt and if it falls under one particular head, it has to be charged under that head and no other. The landmark decisions of UCO Bank Ltd.(32 ITR 688) and East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. (42 ITR 49), which were both Three Judge Bench decisions of the Supreme Court were perused wherein 5 DCIT vs. Kenmore Vikas India (P) Ltd. it had been held that various sections were available in the IT Act, 1922 (sections 7 to 12) corresponding to sections available in the IT Act, 1961 (sec…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 393/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)

…rafts of the State. The assessee carries on the above objective by incurring loan from Govt, and subsidies and grants receipts there from. In the instant case the assessee has a case identical to the decision incase of the United Commercial Bank's case [1957] 32 ITR 688 (SC), the bank which had investments. Indeed, in the case of banks, it is compulsory to place some of the funds in securities. The question that would then arise would be whether the interest income is not also a part of the banking activity. If it is, then notwithstanding the fact that the charge of income-tax is under the head "Interest on secur…

Orissa State Co-Operative Handicrafts Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 392/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.392&393/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014 – 2015 & 2015-2016) M/S Orissa State Co-Operative Vs. Ito Wardd-4(1), Handicrafts Corporation Limited Bhubaneswar D-2/3, Industrial Estate, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaaao 0096 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR

Section 80P(2)

…rafts of the State. The assessee carries on the above objective by incurring loan from Govt, and subsidies and grants receipts there from. In the instant case the assessee has a case identical to the decision incase of the United Commercial Bank's case [1957] 32 ITR 688 (SC), the bank which had investments. Indeed, in the case of banks, it is compulsory to place some of the funds in securities. The question that would then arise would be whether the interest income is not also a part of the banking activity. If it is, then notwithstanding the fact that the charge of income-tax is under the head "Interest on secur…

Mr. Sunil Goyal, Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

ITA 719/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri R. Santhanam, Adv. and Shri Deepak Ostwal, CA and Shri Rishabh Ostwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 28

…taxed under that head and cannot be taken to a different head of income as may be seen from the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of - i) CIT Vs. D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (2005) 273ITR 1 (SC) ii) United Commercial Bank Ltd.Vs.CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688(SC) iii) East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs.CIT(1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) Page 36 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. iv) CIT Vs. Chugandas & Co. (1964) 55 ITR 17(SC) v) S G Mercantile Corporation Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) 8. In the present case there is no dispute that the shares were held by the assessee as long te…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3991/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Awungshi Gimson (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)Section 36

…ely baseless and without any merit. In this regard reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements:-  56ITR 77 - CIT V/s Indian Bank (SC)  242 ITR 250 - Rajasthan Warehousing Corpn Ltd V/s CIT (SC)  55 ITR 17 - CIT V/s Chugandas& Co. (SC)  32 ITR 688 - United Commercial Bank V/s CIT (SC)  82 ITR 452 - CIT V/s Maharashtra Sugar Mills (SC) 24.8. In the above case laws it is ruled that no allocation can be made in case of a consolidated business. It is imperative to note that the department has never disputed the classification of Service Charges as Business Income in the assessee's case. What…