Search Results For: Bharat Damodar


CIT vs. CitiBank N.A. (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 12, 2008 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of securities. American Express vs. CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom) affirmed, Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC) distinguished

It was argued on behalf of the Revenue, that in view of the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC), even if the securities were treated as part of the trading assets, the income therefrom had to be assessed under section 18 of the Act and not under section 28 of the Act as income from securities can only come within section 18 and not under section 28. We do not find any merit in this argument. Firstly, as stated above, Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) has no application to the facts of this case. Secondly, in the present case, the Tribunal has found that the securities were held as trading assets. Thirdly, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision reported in the case of CIT 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 section 28. In the present case, the Department has treated income from securities under section 28.

CIT vs. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 36(1)(vii)/ 36(2): The principal part of the Inter-corporate Debt (ICD) can be claimed as a bad debt if the interest thereon has been offered to tax in some year

The debt comprises not only the brokerage which was offered to tax but also principal value of shares which was not received. Therefore, even if a part of debt is offered to tax, Section 36(2)(i) of the Act, stands satisfied. The test under the first part of Section 36(2)(i) of the Act is that where the debt or a part thereof has been taken into account for computing the profits for earlier Assessment Year, it would satisfy a claim to deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act

Top