1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Kerala High Court allows Revenue's appeal on tax effect, overturns Tribunal decision. Interest on deposits clarified.</h1> The Kerala High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal in 2008, overturning the Tribunal's decision not to hear a case with low tax effect. The court held ... Business Income- Interest from deposit- whether the interest earned being interest on deposit is income from other sources as against the treatment by the assessee as income from business. Held that- the interest earned on short term deposit could not be treated as income from business but was income from other sources. Allow the appeal. The Kerala High Court delivered a judgment in 2008 where the Revenue appealed against a Tribunal's decision not to hear an appeal due to the low tax effect of the disputed issue. The court noted that an earlier instruction allowed for appeals to be filed even with low tax effects if the Revenue audit objection was accepted by the Department. The case involved a dispute over whether interest earned on deposits should be classified as income from other sources or business. The court cited precedents that interest on short-term deposits should not be considered income from business. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's decision was reversed, and the Assessing Officer's order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act was restored. The court rejected the request to remand the case to the Tribunal, deeming it unnecessary. The judgment was delivered by C. N. Ramachandran Nair J. and Harun-Ul-Rashid JJ. The appellant was represented by Jose Joseph, and the respondent by T.M. Sreedharan and V.P. Narayanan.