Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD.
Court Name: Supreme Court of India Judge(s): S. P. Bharucha, Brijesh Kumar, I. Y. K. Sabharwal Title:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT
COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. Case No.: Civil Appeals Nos.4477 to 4479 of 1998 Date of Judgment:2001-10-30 Reported As: 2004 PTD 2172 Result: Appeals dismissed Judgment ORDER ' The High Court has answered against he 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 entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ' The very question was considered by this Court in CIT v. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank (2001) 251 ITR 194 and the conclusion was reiterated in Mehsana District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2001) 251 ITR 522 (SC). ' It is now contended on behalf of the Revenue that the decision of this Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688 was not considered. ' 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. ' The civil appeals are dismissed with costs.'
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.