COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL I vs. EROS CITY DEVELOPERS P. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the interest earned was a result of business activities, not income from other sources, as the margin money was invested from borrowed funds and the assessee was following the completed project method. The High Court found no fault with this view.
What were the facts?
The assessee earned interest on FDRs deposited as margin money for a bank guarantee required for its business of developing a residential colony. The Revenue treated this interest as income from other sources, arguing the business had not commenced.
What were the issues?
Whether interest earned on margin money deposited for business purposes constitutes income from other sources or is part of business income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 540/2008 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENT I .... Appellant Through Mr. R.D. Jolly, Adv. . versus . EROS CITY DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ..... Respondent Through None . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH . O R D E R 22.05.2008 . . . The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd December, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?E? in ITA No. 1759/Del/2004 relevant for the Assessment Year 2001-2002. The Assessee had earned some interest on FDRs deposited in banks. According to the Revenue, the interest earned was income from other sources inasmuch as the Assessee has not begun its business activities. We find from a perusal of the Assessment Order that according to the Assessee, it had received a licence from the Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana on 30th December, 1995 to develop a residential colony known as Lakewood City at Village Lakkarpur. For the purpose of its ITA 540/2008 Page no. 1 of 2 . development activities, the Assessee was required to furnish a bank guarantee and for that, the Assessee was required to deposit 25% of the amount as margin money. It is on this amount that the Assessee earned interest. The Tribunal has noted that the margin money was invested not out of surplus funds but funds borrowed by the Assessee and that the Assessee was following the completed project method of accounting. On this basis, the Tribunal held that the interest earned by the Assessee was not by way of income from other sources but as a result of its business activities. We are unable to find any fault with the view taken by the Tribunal particularly since the Assessee was granted a licence on 30th December, 1995 and must, therefore, have commenced its business activities at least on that date. No substantial question of law arises in the matter. Dismissed. . MADAN B. LOKUR, J . . MANMOHAN SINGH, J MAY 22, 2008 SD ITA 540/2008 Page no. 2 of 2 .
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026