COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI APPARELS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/635/2007HC Delhi31 July 20083 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that interest earned on FDRs, where surplus funds are parked with a bank, is income from other sources and not business income. Therefore, it does not qualify for relief under Section 80HHC.

What were the facts?

The assessee earned interest income on Fixed Deposits (FDRs). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held this interest to be business income, qualifying for relief under Section 80HHC. The Revenue appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether interest earned on FDRs by the assessee constitutes business income eligible for Section 80HHC relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 56

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

ITA No. 635 of 2007

Page 1 of 3 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on : 31.07.2008

ITA No. 635/2007

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

..... Appellant

-versus-

JYOTI APPARELS ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant

: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal For the Respondent

: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Garg

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

1.

Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest ?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. Admit. 2. The following substantial question of law is framed :- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law holding that the interest amount of 2008:DHC:2204-DB

ITA No. 635 of 2007

Page 2 of 3 Rs.41,22,165/-earned by the assessee on FDRs was a business income and would qualify for relief under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

3.

This question need not detain us for very long, in as much as, the same has already been decided by this Court in several decisions starting from CIT vs. Sriram Honda Power Equipment : 289 ITR 457 (Delhi) and including CIT vs Jyoti Apparels (the present respondent) in ITA NO. 756/2006 decided on 19.01.2007. These decisions clearly indicate that the above question has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4.

The following observations of this Court in Sriram Honda Power Equipment (Supra) need to be emphasized:- “…… We are, therefore, of the view that where surplus funds are parked with the bank and interest is earned thereon it can only be categorized as income from other sources. This receipt merits separate treatment under Section 56 of the Act which is outside the ring of profit and gains from business and profession. It goes entirely out of the reckoning for the purposes of Section 80HHC. To give effect to this position, the Assessing Officer while computing profits of the export business will have to remove from the debit side of the profit and loss account the corresponding interest expenditure that has been “laid out” to earn such income from other sources. Otherwise this will depress the profits by an amount which is out of the reckoning of Section 80HHC, a consequence not intended to be brought about.” 2008:DHC:2204-DB

ITA No. 635 of 2007

Page 3 of 3 5. The Assessing Officer shall keep the above observations in mind. With the abovesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

July 31, 2008 mk 2008:DHC:2204-DB

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →