UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

43D of the Act are not\napplicable for the computation of income of insurance companies. She\nsubmits that in respect of general insurance companies, profits are\ncomputed as per the annual accounts maintained in accordance with\nInsurance Act, 1938 or the Rules there under or the provisions of\nInsurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 [IRDAA] or\nthe regulations made

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

43D of the Act are not\napplicable for the computation of income of insurance companies. She\nsubmits that in respect of general insurance companies, profits are\ncomputed as per the annual accounts maintained in accordance with\nInsurance Act, 1938 or the Rules there under or the provisions of\nInsurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 [IRDAA] or\nthe regulations made

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

43D of the Act are not\napplicable for the computation of income of insurance companies. She\nsubmits that in respect of general insurance companies, profits are\ncomputed as per the annual accounts maintained in accordance with\nInsurance Act, 1938 or the Rules there under or the provisions of\nInsurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 [IRDAA] or\nthe regulations made

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

43D of the Act are not\napplicable for the computation of income of insurance companies. She\nsubmits that in respect of general insurance companies, profits are\ncomputed as per the annual accounts maintained in accordance with\nInsurance Act, 1938 or the Rules there under or the provisions of\nInsurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 [IRDAA] or\nthe regulations made

ACIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee's own case by the Madras High Court in T.C. No.2139 of 2008. It is 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 not in dispute that the securities are classified as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the loss in transit

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. ADDL. CIT, TRICHY

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee's own case by the Madras High Court in T.C. No.2139 of 2008. It is 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 not in dispute that the securities are classified as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the loss in transit

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. ADDL. CIT, TRICHY

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee's own case by the Madras High Court in T.C. No.2139 of 2008. It is 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 not in dispute that the securities are classified as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the loss in transit

ACIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2005-06

gain 92 bond. The loss of sale of securities was allowed as business loss in the assessee's own case by the Madras High Court in T.C. No.2139 of 2008. It is 11 I.T.A. Nos.1340 & 1341/Mds/13 I.T.A. Nos. 1496 & 27/Mds/13 not in dispute that the securities are classified as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the loss in transit

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections 28 to 37.” 9. Once holding of investment was considered incidental to the business of banking to the assessee, in our opinion, Section 14A of the Act could not have been applied

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections 28 to 37.” 9. Once holding of investment was considered incidental to the business of banking to the assessee, in our opinion, Section 14A of the Act could not have been applied

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections 28 to 37.” 9. Once holding of investment was considered incidental to the business of banking to the assessee, in our opinion, Section 14A of the Act could not have been applied

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections 28 to 37.” 9. Once holding of investment was considered incidental to the business of banking to the assessee, in our opinion, Section 14A of the Act could not have been applied

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital expenditure as revenue expenditure without considering the facts. The Ld. AR submitted that all the government securities are treated as stock in trade and relied on the order of the CIT(A) and Jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal orders. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, judicial decisions. The Ld. DR has argued that