Itxa/12/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv, Pune v. The Pandharpur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd
High Court
31 Jul 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/12/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv, Pune v. The Pandharpur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd
Date of order
31 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/12/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv, Pune v. The Pandharpur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: P.C. :- 1.The above appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in law the ITATl was right in holding that interest from Govt. securities and income from sale of Govt. securities amounting to Rs.10,14,53,916/- and Rs.3,37,76,500/ respectively qualifi...
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.12 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
The Pandharpur Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.None for respondent.
..Respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 31ST JULY, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.The above appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
" Whether on the facts and in law the ITATl was right in holding that interest from Govt. securities and income from sale of Govt. securities amounting to Rs.10,14,53,916/- and Rs.3,37,76,500/ respectively qualifies for deduction under sec. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the I. T. Act, 1961 ? "
2.The issue sought to be raised is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. The Solapur Nagari AudyogicSahakari Bank Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.46 OF 2008 decided on 16th June, 2009. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA, J.)
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.
EaseValue