Held that interest paid to the sellers for the broken period on purchase of securities should not be considered as part of purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of securities. Followed CIT v. CIT Bank N.A (No. 1) (2024) 469 ITR 273 (SC) (AY.1982-83) (AY.1983-84, 1984-85, 1987-88)
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]
Leave a Reply