ASMAN INVESTMENT LTD. vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

TAXAP/154/2007HC GujaratGJHC24055501200701 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA22 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Asman Investment Ltd., is a company that filed its return of income for assessment year 1997-98 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, but not under the Interest Tax Act, 1974, believing it was not a finance company and had not earned taxable interest. The Assessing Officer, during the income tax assessment, discovered interest income of Rs. 1.70 crores and issued a notice for reassessment under the Interest Tax Act. The assessee contended it was trading in shares and securities, not a finance company, and its objects did not fit the definition. The Assessing Officer disagreed, considering it a financial company. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) and subsequently to the Tribunal also failed, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee company was indeed a financial company. It reasoned that the company's three principal objects, which included investing in and acquiring shares, bonds, stocks, securities, lending money, and dealing in land and other immovable properties, clearly fell within the nature of investment and loan businesses as defined in Section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. The court rejected the assessee's argument that only actual activities in a financial year should be considered, stating that this would lead to a fluctuating classification of the company from year to year. Regarding the argument that interest earned on deposits was not taxable, the court noted that this contention was raised for the first time and contradicted the assessee's earlier stand before the lower authorities, where it admitted to advancing money and earning interest. Since no factual dispute was raised or material produced to support the deposit argument, it was rejected. Therefore, the question was answered against the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is liable to pay interest tax on the interest earned by it, turning on the interpretation of Section 2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee company was not a financial company as neither its objects nor its actual activities established it as such. - The revenue authorities and the Tribunal failed to conclude the precise category under which the company would qualify as a financial company. - The principal object was rendering consultancy services, and even its activities of advancing surplus funds and trading in shares did not bring it within the definition. - Even if the company is a financial company, the interest earned on deposits should not be subject to tax under the Act, citing Visisth Chay Vypapar Ltd. (supra). Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue authorities and the Tribunal held the assessee to be a financial company based on its objects and activities. - The interest earned was taxable under the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(5B),Section 2(7),Section 10

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/154/2007 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 154 of 2007

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== ASMAN INVESTMENT LTD. Versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance: MRS SWATI SOPARKAR for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 28/02/2018 & 01/03/2018

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURA

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(7)

All 52 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(7) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →