Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.83 seconds)

Farrukhabad Gramin Bank vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 23 February, 2006

8.23 Attention was also invited to CIT v. Bangalore District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) referring to paper book p. 23, which contains the said judgment from pp. 20 to 33 as reported in (1998) 148 CTR (SC) 226 : (1988) 99 Taxman 404 (SC) (supra) wherein at p. 407 of the said judgment (relevant p. 23 of the paper book) it was submitted that this judgment again was in the context of Sections 24 and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as well as Section 57(2) of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Act, 1959 and Rule 23(3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 and in the context of these specific Acts/Rules their Lordships of Supreme Court held "on the fact situation of the case, we do not find any justification to interfere with the conclusions of the High Court. The appeals suffer dismissal. There will be no order as to costs." It was further highlighted by the learned Departmental Representative that even in the said case, the arguments on behalf of the assessees co-operative central bank was that income of the co-operative society carrying on business of banking was attributable to the said activities and there was a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal therein that the interest income is attributable to the business of the assessee, which finding, it was submitted, had not been challenged on the factual basis by the Revenue and no material as such had been placed before their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court to upset the conclusions of the High Court. Accordingly, on account of these specific facts and different provisions of the State Co-operative Societies Acts and Rules, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 117 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Surat District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 20 November, 2002

In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Madurai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. (1984) 148 ITR 196 (Mad) wherein it was held that the maintenance or liquid assets in the form of securities is a must for carrying on the banking activity of the assessee and, therefore, the income from such securities should be taken to be income from banking business.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 77 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Jila ... on 31 August, 1998

20. We may observe that the Revenue could not refute the above contentions either before the CIT(A) or before us. In the absence of any material brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the above contentions, it is not permissible to ignore them and draw adverse inference. On the facts available on records, it has, therefore, to be held that the assessee co-operative society, which is carrying on the business of banking, earned interest income on its investment in securities as per the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act in the course of carrying on its banking business. If that be so, the latest decision, of the Hon'ble apex Court in CIT v. Bangalore District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the assessee's case, wherein their lordships took notice of the fact that the investment in securities had been made by the assessee in compliance with the statutory provisions of ss. 24 & 56 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, and in order to carry on the business of banking the same was necessary and consequently such investments were part of the business activities falling within the scope of s. 80P(2)(a)(i).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madurai District Co-Operative Bank ... on 11 November, 1997

Subsequently, this court in the case of CIT v. Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. [1997] 224 ITR 237 also held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction apart from the first three items but also on the income from dividends under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The result is that with reference to the items covered under 1, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned the order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is in conformity with the earlier decisions of this court and there is no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Madurai District Central Co-Operative ... on 28 April, 1998

In Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra), the Court noticed that the interest on securities, in respect of which deduction had been claimed by the assessee, was on securities which constituted the liquid assets which are to be maintained at a particular percentage as per the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and the directions given by the Reserve Bank of India. The court held that such investments form part of circulating capital as the investments were realisable whenever there was need for additional funds.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Madurai District Co-Operatm Bank Ltd. on 11 November, 1997

Subsequently, this Court in the case of CIT v. Madurai Distjdct Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (1997) 224 ITR 237 (Mad) also held that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction apart from the first three items but also on the income from dividends under section 8OP(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The result is that with reference to the items covered under 1,3,4 and 5 are concerned the order of the Tribunal holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is in conformity with the earlier decisions of this Court and there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next