Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2001 Supreme(SC) 1501

(2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 620
S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWALAND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS Appellant;
Versus
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4477-79 of 1998t,
Decided on October 30, 2001

Advocates Appeared:
R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate (Preetesh Kapur, BV Balaram Das and Ms Sushma Suri, Advocates) for the Appellant;
R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate (V. Prabhakar and Ms Revathy Raghavan, Advocates) for the Respondent.

Certain incomes are entitled to deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act based on previous court decisions.

Headnote:
Income Tax Act - Deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) - Interest on securities, subsidies, and dividend business income
Fact of the Case:

The High Court answered against the Revenue on the question of whether certain incomes are entitled to deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the decision in previous cases supported the entitlement to deduction for the specified incomes and rejected the Revenue's contention to consider a different case.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on previous decisions and concluded that the specified incomes are entitled to deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Final Decision: The civil appeals were dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

1. The High Court has answered against the Revenue, the following question:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest on securities, subsidies received from the Government and dividend business income of the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 19611"

The very question was considered by this Court in CIT v. Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank and the conclusion was reiterated in Mehsana District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. ITO.

2. It is now contended on behalf of the Revenue that the decision of this Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT3 was not considered.

3. We do not think that it is open to the Revenue to urge, through different counsel, the same thing again and again. We are satisfied that the answer to the question has been correctly given in the decisions aforementioned and in the order under appeal.

4. The civil appeals are dismissed with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1501

(2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 620S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWALAND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS Appellant;VersusRAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED Respondent.Civil Appeals Nos. 4477-79 of 1998t, Decided on October 30, 2001

Certain incomes are entitled to deduction under Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act based on previous court decisions.

Cases Referred (2)

(2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 620
S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWALAND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS Appellant;
Versus
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4477-79 of 1998t,
Decided on October 30, 2001