Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Nh Securities Ltd. vs Dcit on 27 July, 2006
In our considered opinion, the facts in issue before
us are similar to what has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench
in the case of Derive Trading Pvt. Ltd (supra) wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench has considered the decision in the case of Rmkumar
Venugopal Investments Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA No. 6324/M/2012,
decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCL Ltd. Vs
JCIT 250 CTR 291 and also the Third Member decision in the case of
D.H. Securities Ltd. Vs DCIT 41 Taxmann.com 352. The relevant part
of the decision of the Tribunal reads as under:
M/S. Southern Technologies Ltd vs Joint Commnr. Of Income Tax, Coimbatore on 11 January, 2010
(C) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in
law in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction with
respect to the diminution in value of the investment and
amortization of premium on investment held to maturity on
the ground of mandate by the RBI guidelines thereby ignoring
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Southern
Technologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577(SC) ?""
American Express International ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 September, 2002
On going through the
said judgment, we find that question (B) reproduced above and
projected as substantial by Mr. Suresh Kumar is squarely answered
by the judgment of this court in the case of American Express
International Banking Corporation (supra). In view thereof, we do
not find that even question (B) gives rise to any substantial
question of law that needs to be answered by this court.
Asstt. Cit vs Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. on 31 May, 2006
As far as question (C) is concerned, we find that an
identical question of law was framed and answered in favour of
the assessee by this court in its judgment dated July 4, 2014, in
Income Tax Appeal No. 1079 of 2012, CIT v. Lord Krishna Bank
Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.) [2014] 366 ITR
416(Bom). Mr. Suresh Kumar fairly stated that question (C)
reproduced above is covered by the said order. In view thereof,
we are of the view that even question (C) does not raise any
substantial question of law that requires an answer from us."
M/S. S.E. Investments Ltd. vs Acit, Circle 7(1) on 3 October, 2012
In our considered opinion, the facts in issue before
us are similar to what has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench
in the case of Derive Trading Pvt. Ltd (supra) wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench has considered the decision in the case of Rmkumar
Venugopal Investments Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT in ITA No. 6324/M/2012,
decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCL Ltd. Vs
JCIT 250 CTR 291 and also the Third Member decision in the case of
D.H. Securities Ltd. Vs DCIT 41 Taxmann.com 352. The relevant part
of the decision of the Tribunal reads as under:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd vs Addl. Labour Commissioner & Ors on 17 January, 2007
12. As the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and
against the Revenue, we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and
direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 11,50,42,776/- in the light
of the decision in the case of HDFC Bank (supra). Ground No. 2 is
accordingly allowed.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd on 23 April, 2010
CIT
[1991] 187 ITR 541(SC) and the Rajasthan High Court's
decision in the case of CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2009] 316
ITR 391?
1