Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 137
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. (2024)469 ITR 552 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Division of expenditure-Sales return-Provision for sales return-No substantial question of law. [S. 10(1), 145, 260A]

CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad (No. 2) (2024)469 ITR 325 (Telangana)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed, CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad (2024) 469 ITR 332 (SC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Bank-Interest-Capital or revenue-Broken period interest paid on purchase of securities-Allowable as revenue expenditure.[S. 260A]

CIT v. State Bank Of Hyderabad (2024)469 ITR 332 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. State Bank of Hyderabad (No. 2) (2024)469 ITR 325 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Bank-Interest-Capital or revenue-Broken period interest paid on purchase of securities-Allowable as revenue expenditure-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[Art. 136]

CIT v. Standard Chartered Bank (2024)469 ITR 408 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Standard Chartered Bank, ITR No. 87 of 1996 dt 16-7-2003 (Ker)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Banks-Government Securities-Purchased after interest date-Interest paid for broken period is not part of purchase price-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

CIT v.Citi Bank N. A. (NO. 3) (2024)469 ITR 403 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A ITR No. 191 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003(Bom)(HC) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 5) (2024)469 ITR 414 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (ITA.No. 426 of 1998 dt. 10-4-2003 CIT v.Citi Bank N. A. (No. 7) (2024)469 ITR 417 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR.No. 265 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Banks-Government Securities-Interest paid for broken period-Allowable as revenue expenditure.[Art. 136]

CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 1) (2024)469 ITR 273 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A.(2003) 264 ITR 18 (Bom)(HC) CIT v.Citi Bank N. A. (No. 7) (2024)469 ITR 417 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR.No. 265 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Banks-Government Securities-Interest paid for broken period-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. M. P. Entertainment and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2024)469 ITR 421 (MP)(HC) Editorial : PCIT v. M. P. Entertainment and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 469 ITR 428 (SC), SLP of Revenue is dismissed.

S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from house property-Object of developing commercial properties-Rental income assessable as business income. [S. 22, 260A].

CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (NO. 3) (2024)469 ITR 403 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A ITR No. 191 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003(Bom)(HC) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 4) (2024)469 ITR 410 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR No. 349 of 1995 dt. 5-3 2003 (Bom)(HC) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 5) (2024)469 ITR 414 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (ITA.No. 426 of 1998 dt. 10-4-2003 CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 6) (2024)469 ITR 416 (SC) Editorial : CIT v.Citi Bank N. A (ITA No. 1 of 1988 dt. 5-3-2003, ITR No. 232 of 1996 dt. 22-7-2003) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 7) (2024)469 ITR 417 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR.No. 265 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 7) (2024)469 ITR 417 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR.No. 265 of 1997 dt. 10-4-2003)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Interest on securities-Business income-Business expenditure-Salaries and perquisites-Disallowance is to be restricted to expenditure apportioned under profits and gains of business or profession and not under head interest on securities. [S. 18, 20(1(i), 36, 37(1), 40A(5),44C, Art. 136]

CIT v Citi Bank N. A. (No. 2) (2024)469 ITR 398 (SC) Editorial : Citi Bank N.A. v.CIT (2003) 262 ITR 47 (Bom)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Interest on securities-Business income-Business expenditure-Salaries and perquisites-Disallowance is to be restricted to expenditure apportioned under profits and gains of business or profession and not under head interest on securities-Precedent-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 18, 20(1(i), 36, 37(1), 40A(5), Art. 136]

CIT v. Bank of America (2024)469 ITR 406 (SC) Editorial: Decision of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Bank of America (Bom)(HC)(ITR No. 81 of 1994 dt. 22-7-2023, Followed, CITv. Citi Bank N.A. (No. 2 (2024) 469 ITR 398 (SC)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Accrual of income-Banks-Interest on doubtful loans-Determined in accordance with Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular. [S. 21, 40A(5), 119]