The Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-1006-2]
| Citation | 2017-LL-1006-2 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | The Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin |
| Respondent Name | Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 06/10/2017 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | government securities • capital expenditure • revenue expenditure • interest accrued • interest paid • bad debt |
| Bot Summary: | Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax on the issue regarding the debiting of bad debts relating to the non-rural branches in the provision for bad debt account created in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of interest accrued on Government securities on the ground that interest on Government securities does not accrue on a day-to-day basis but only on the due date 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the order of the Assessing Authority in the matter of assessment of interest on Government securities 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to have different systems for I.T.A. No. 311/2009 -2- receipts and payments and does not the order of the Tribunal result in such conclusion and hence the order wrong and vitiated 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the interest paid on the purchase of securities till the date of purchase is revenue expenditure and not capital outlay 6. Whether, the Tribunal was right in not relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank reported in 187 ITR 541 2. Insofar as the second question regarding the interest accrued on Government securities and the third question as to whether the interest for broken period is a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure, are concerned, those questions have also been considered 1 339 ITR 606 I.T.A. No. 311/2009 -3- by this Court and answered against the Revenue in the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Federal Bank Ltd.2 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.3 respectively. |