Supreme Court of India
2004
THLN 246
2004 PTD 2172 | (2003) 87 TAX 264
Laws Cited
Income Tax Act, 1961
Sections
80,80P(2)(a)(i)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

VS

RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD

Petitioner(s) by: R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (Preetesh Kapur, B. V. Balram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him)
Respondent(s) by: R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate (V. Prabhakar and. Ms Revathy Raghavan, Advocates with him)
Present: S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ

Income-tax----Special deduction--Cooperative-Society-Banking business---Interest on securities---Subsidies from Government---Dividend---Are business income---Deduction available---Supreme Court---Earlier decisions on these points---Do not require reconsideration--Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 80P(2)(a)(i).Held, that (i) interest on securities, (ii) subsidies from the Government, and (iii) dividend received by the assessee, a cooperative society carrying on banking business, were business income of the assessee, and the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 19.61, in respect thereof.CIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (2001) 251 ITR 194 (SC) and Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2001) 251 ITR 522 (SC) fol.Held also, that CIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (2001) 251 ITR 194 (SC) and Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2001) 251 ITR 522 (SC) are correctly decided.United Commercial ...

2004 THLN 246
Supreme Court of India
(2004 PTD 2172 | (2003) 87 TAX 264)

PRESENT:
S. P. BHARUCHA, Y. K. SABHARWAL AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
VS
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD

Petitioner(s) by: R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (Preetesh Kapur, B. V. Balram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him).

Respondent(s) by: R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate (V. Prabhakar and. Ms Revathy Raghavan, Advocates with him).

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Sections: 80,80P(2)(a)(i)

Disclaimer / Note: We have reproduced the judgment for facilitation of readers; however, the readers must study the original or certified copy of the above said judgment before referring it in any Court of Law. The judgment as reproduced above is a reported judgment available in law magazines and journals namely: 2004 PTD 2172 | (2003) 87 TAX 264