Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
21 Head of income — Business income or income from other
sources — Interest on short-term deposits with bank — In the absence of factual
matrix, matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
The assessee was an exporter. The Tribunal held that the
interest income was generated by way of keeping the ‘advances’ received by the
assessee in the course of its regular business activity. According to the
Department, it was the case of surplus being invested in FDR, whereas according
to the assessee it was the case of advance having been received from the
exporter which was in FDR for short duration.
The Supreme Court observed that in the present case there was
no factual data to decide the aforesaid issue. The nature of the receipt was not
discussed. The High Court while disposing of the matter had also not examined
the factual basis. In view of the absence of factual matrix the Supreme Court
was of the view that to decide the question as to whether the receipt fell
u/s.28 or u/s.56, the matter was required to be remitted to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration in accordance with law.
[CIT v. Producin Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 270 (SC)]