Ita/172/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichurm v. Catholice Syrian Bank Ltd
High Court
29 Jun 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/172/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichurm v. Catholice Syrian Bank Ltd
Date of order
29 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Ita/172/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichurm v. Catholice Syrian Bank Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified incancelling the assessment of income being the differencebetween the cost of acquisition and face value of Governmentsecurities.
Decision: We therefore dismiss the appeal filed by the department.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931
ITA.No. 172 of 2009(T)
----------------------
ITA.378/1999 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
-------------------------------
M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,
TRICHUR.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -----------------------------------
I.T.A. No. 172 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29[th] day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T----------------------
Ramachandran Nair,J.
The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified incancelling the assessment of income being the differencebetween the cost of acquisition and face value of Governmentsecurities. Assessee was returning income for earlier years andthe same was accepted by department. However later ReserveBank issued circular addressing banks not to remit tax on thedifference between the face value and cost of acquisition of theGovernment Securities. The issue raised is for the year prior toth date of the circular came into force. The Tribunal howeveraccepted the assessee's contentions and allowed the claim. Wedo not find anything with the Tribunal's findings becauseReserve Banks circular is obviously accepted by the departmentfor subsequent years and circular is nothing but an advice tobank not to pay tax on notional income. The fact that theassessee without contest paid tax for earlier years does not mean
that they forfeit their right to contest liability for any subsequentyear. We therefore dismiss the appeal filed by the department.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.