LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR versus INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 13-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 381 
-=-+ 
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR 
A 
II. 
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.7437-7438 of 2004) 
OCTOBER 13, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
·+: 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Interest Tax Act, 197 4 - s. 2(7) - Interest earned by as-
sessee-Bank on Government Securities - Held: Is not liable c 
to be assessed u/s 2(7) - In the instant case, the question as 
to whether the interest earned was on Government Securities, 
is since disputed, direction to Tribunal to decide the question 
- Interest not be made assessable to tax only if found to have 
been earned solely on Government Securities. 
0 
The question for consideration in the instant appeals 
"< 
was whether the interest earned by the assessee-Bank 
on Government Securities was liable to be assessed u/s 
2(7) of Interest Tax Act, 197 4. Appellate Tribunal as well as 
High Court held that it was not chargeable. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, the question as to whether 
the interest involved in the instant case was on Govern-
ment Securities was disputed by the parties. 
..... 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
F 
·-+\ 
·HELD: In *Corporation Bank's case it was held that in-
terest earned on Government Securities is not liable to 
be assessed under Section 2(7) of Interest Tax Act, 1974. 
There is dispute between the parties as to whether the 
interest earned was on the Government Securities alone. G 
If that be so, the ratio of the decision in Corporation Bank's 
~ 
case will apply to the facts of the present case and if the 
interest earned is not solely on Government Securities, 
381 
H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A the ratio of the decision will not apply. [Para 4] [383 A-C] 
r 
*Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Corporation Bank 2008 
(166) Taxman 388 - relied on. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
B 
2008 (166) Taxman 388 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
~t-
7437-7438 of 2008 
c 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2002 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income Tax Appeal 
Nos. ·39 & 71 of 2001 
Mohan Prasaran,ASG., V. Shekhar, H. Raghavendra Rao, 
Gaurav Dhingra, D.L. Chidananda and B.V. Balaram Das for 
D the Appellant. 
~ 
Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Neeraj Kumar, Chirag S. 
Q(iV, ·Rajesh Kumar, Sathish Aggarwal, V. Prabhakar, Ramjee 
x 
Pxasad, M.K.D. Namboodiry, R.S. Suri, Chinmoy Khaladker, 
§.K . .Naridy and Revathy Raghavan (for Mis. J.S. Wad & Co.) 
E for the Respondents. 
!he Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.. 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals 
is to the judgment of final order passed by the Bombay High 
F Court in a group of appeals filed by the revenue under Sec~;,)n 
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') read with 
~' ,, 
Section 24 of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 (in short the 'Interest 
Act'). Question involved was whether interest earned by the as-
sessee bank on government securities was liable to be as-
G sessed under Section 2(7) of the Interest Act. The Income Tax 
. ,. Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') held that it was not 
chargeable. The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld 
'~ 
the view of the Tribunal. The revenue filed the present appeals· 
against the judgment of the High Court. It was submitted by 
H learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal and the High 
/:
I 
THE COMMISS. OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR v. INDUS. 383 
DEVEL. BANK OF INDIA LTD. [DR. ARIJIT PASf.YAT, J.] 
-~ 
Court were not justified in holding that loans and advances do A 
not include interest on securities, bonds, debentures and there-
fore not liable to tax under the provisions of the Interest Act. ltis, 
submitted that interest on securities falls within the meaning of: 
"Interest chargeable to tax" as defined under Section 2(7)of the 
Interest Act. 
B 
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, assessee-Bank 
on the other hand supported the judgment of the Tribunal as 
-
upheld by the High Court. 
3. A similar question came up for consideration before this c 
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Corporation Bank 
-·1 
(2008 (166) Taxman 388). This court held as follows: 
"Leave granted in special leave petitions. 
The short point which arises in this batch of civil appeals D 
is whether interest earned by the assessees-banks on 
-~ 
dated Government securities was liable to be assessed 
under section 2(7) read with Section 4 of the Interest Tax 
Act, 1974. In our view, there is a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.