High CourtDivision BenchAppeals dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur II v. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 7437-7438 of 2004
Neutral Citation:[2008] 14 S.C.R. 381

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Dr. Arijit Pasayat
  • Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date
2008-10-13
Court Decision / Holding
Appeals disposed of. The Court held that interest earned on government securities is not liable to be assessed under Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. Since a factual dispute exists whether the interest was solely on government securities, the Tribunal is to examine the factual position; in any event, the ratio from Commissioner of Income Tax v. Corporation Bank applies if the interest is solely on government securities; ultimately, the appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Appeals dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur II

Respondents

  • Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Mohan Prasaran
  • • V. Shekhar
  • • H. Raghavendra Rao
  • • Gaurav Dhingra
  • • D. L. Chidananda
  • • B. V. Balaram Das

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Jayashree Wad
  • • Ashish Wad
  • • Neeraj Kumar
  • • Chirag S. Qiv
  • • Rajesh Kumar
  • • Sathish Aggarwal
  • • V. Prabhakar
  • • Ramjee Prasad
  • • M. K. D. Namboodiry
  • • R. S. Suri
  • • Chinmoy Khaladker
  • • S. K. Naridy
  • • Revathy Raghavan

Case Synopsis & Summary

These appeals challenge whether the interest earned by the assessee-bank on government securities is liable to be assessed under Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. The Tribunal and the Bombay High Court had held that such interest is not taxable. On appeal, the Revenue pressed that interest on securities falls within ‘Interest chargeable to tax’ under s. 2(7). The matter is linked to Commissioner of Income Tax v. Corporation Bank (2008 (166) Taxman 388), where the Court drew a basic distinction between loans and advances and investments in securities, and held that interest on government securities is not taxable under 2(7 when earned solely on government securities. The Supreme Court notes two Bombay High Court decisions—Discount and Finance House of India Ltd. v. S.K. Bhardwaj, CIT and CIT v. United Western Bank Ltd.—which the Revenue accepted, and it expresses agreement with the view of the Bombay High Court. The Court observes a factual dispute as to whether the interest here was earned solely on government securities and directs the Tribunal to examine the factual position. If the interest is on government securities alone, the ratio of Corporation Bank’s case applies; if not, the ratio does not. Ultimately, the appeals are disposed of, holding there is no merit in the department’s appeals and they are dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Interest Tax Act, 1974, s. 2(7)Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 260AInterest Tax Act, 1974, s. 4

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court erred in treating interest on government securities as not taxable under s. 2(7); argues that interest on securities falls within the definition of 'Interest chargeable to tax' under Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act; maintains that the ratio of the Corporation Bank decision should apply if the interest is earned solely on government securities and requests the Tribunal to examine whether the interest involved was on government securities; if so, the ratio applies; if not, it does not.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-bank supports the Tribunal and the High Court, contending that interest on government securities is not taxable under s. 2(7); relies on the distinction between loans/advances and investments in securities; cites Bombay High Court decisions Discount and Finance House of India Ltd. v. S. K. Bhardwaj, CIT and CIT v. United Western Bank Ltd. and notes the Revenue’s acceptance of those judgments; argues that the factual position should determine taxability.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Corporation Bank2008 (166) Taxman 388PositiveCourt held that interest earned on government securities is not liable to be taxed under Section 2(7); the ratio is applied to the present case.
Discount and Finance House of India Ltd. v. S.K. Bhardwaj, CITMANU/MH/0628/2002Positive Bombay High Court decisions cited and followed regarding loans/advances vs investments; supports non-taxability of interest on government securities.
CIT v. United Western Bank Ltd.MANU/MH/0629/2002Positive Bombay High Court decision cited and followed; supports non-taxability of interest on government securities.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur II v. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 381 A B 0 _"<_ ~ -=-+ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR II. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos.7437-7438 of 2004) OCTOBER 13, 2008 _·+:_ ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] _Interest Tax Act, 197 4_ - s. _2(7)_ - _Interest earned by_ assessee-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._ 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 Government Securities was disputed by the parties. ..... Disposing of the appeals, the Court F _·-+\_ ·HELD: In _*Corporation Bank's_ case it was held that interest 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 [2008] 14 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 382 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. 7437-7438 of 2008 ~t- From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.12.2002 of c 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 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 assessee bank on government securities was liable to be asG . ,. Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') held that it was not[sessed under Section 2(7) ][of ][the Interest Act. The Income ][Tax ] 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 ] x .. ~'[,, ] '~ 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 therefore 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. -~ ~ _,t\_ """' 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 basic difference between loans and advances on the one hand and investments/ E securities on the other. This difference is indicated in the provisions of the Income tax Act, the Companies Act as well as the Bank Regulation Act. These aspects have been discussed in detail in two decisions of the Bombay High Court, namely Discount and Finance House of India Ltd. F v. S.K. Bhardwaj, CIT reported in MANU/MH/0628/2002, as also in another decision of the Bombay High Court reported in MANU/MH/0629/2002 in the case of CIT v. United Western Bank Ltd. It is not in dispute that the revenue has accepted the aforesaid two judgments of the Bombay High Court. We are in agreement with the view G expressed by the Bombay High Court. > For the aforestated reasons there is no merit in the civil appeals filed by the department. The same are dismissed No order as to costs." H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 384 A +- \ A 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this Court's decision related to the interest on government securities. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant case the interest earned was on government securities only. The stand is denied by learned counsel for the appellant. e Let the-Tribunal examine the factual position as to whether the interest involved in the. present case is on government securities. If that be so, the ratio of the decision in _Corporation Bank's_ case (supra) will apply to the facts of the present case and if the interest earned is not solely on government securities, the ratio c of the decision will not apply. 5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. K.K.T. Appeals disposed of.