Home › Income-Tax Act › 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) 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. 2) (2024)469 ITR 398 (SC) Editorial : Citi Bank N.A. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 47 (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)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Precedent-Reference decided in favour of assessee-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed-Not establishing public interest on divergence of opinion among High Courts or Just Cause-Appeal is dismissed-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), 28, 36, 37(1), 40A(5), Art. 136]

The High Court, following its earlier order in the case of the same assessee, which in turn followed in the case of British Bank of the Middle East v. CIT (1998) 233 ITR 251 (Bom)(HC)  held that the interest received by the assessee on the sale of securities held by it, was assessable to tax under the head Interest on securities and not under the head Income from business on appeal, Court held that  since admittedly the Department had neither filed any appeal against those judgments, nor raised or pleaded any of the reasons spelt out by the court in C. K. Gangadharan v. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 61 (SC)  nor made out just cause  the appeals  are dismissed.(AY.1981-82).(AY.1985-86, 1986-87)

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*