M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT held that the assessee was neither a credit institution nor a finance company under the Interest Tax Act. Consequently, the provisions of the Act were not attracted to the interest income received on delayed payment of premium by allottees or on advances given to UPSEB.
What were the facts?
The assessee, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., received interest income. The tax authorities sought to levy interest tax, but the assessee contended it was not a 'credit institution' or 'financial company' as defined under the Interest Tax Act. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, excluding interest on bank deposits and employee loans but including interest on loans to UPSEB and delayed premium payments.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee qualifies as a 'credit institution' or 'financial company' under the Interest Tax Act, and whether the interest income received falls within the definition of 'chargeable interest'.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 2(5),Section 2(5A),Section 2(5B),Section 2(7),Section 5,Section 10,Section 36(1)(viii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Assam Company (I) Ltd. v. CIT63 citing256 ITR 423 · 2002 · HC
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad v. Bhanji Kanji’s Shop4 citing68 ITR 416 · 1968 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-2, Kanpur, both dated 23.02.2004, in which the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeals of the assessee against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer, passed under section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 on 1.03.2002. Since the issue involved in both these assessment years is similar and the cases were taken up for argument together, the same are disposed of by way of a common order. The grounds of appeal preferred in the two assessment years are as under:
A.Y. 1995-96 “1. BECAUSE the notice under section 10 o
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.
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)
- Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies… vs ITO, TDS, Ward(1), EluruITA 29/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed3 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
- M/S U.P State Industrial Development… vs Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, KanpurITA 4/LKW/2004[1996-97]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2025AY 1996-97
- Late Satish Mehta Thru Lh Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs ITO Ward 34(4) New Delhi, New DelhiITA 4646/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
- Lata Vikram Punvani Through Tehmina Punvani… vs ITO-5(3), LucknowITA 573/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
- Late Krishna Gopal Gupta (Thr. Son and… vs I.T.O. Ward 2 (1), JaipurITA 2/JPR/2024[A.Y. 2007-08]Status: Disposed14 Mar 2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026