The Commissioner of Income Tax, V. M/s. Avanthi Feeds Limited,

ITTA/82/2007

AI Insights

The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning whether interest income derived from a fixed deposit towards margin money can be considered as business income to qualify for benefits under the said section. The Tribunal initially found that the interest income was not derived in the course of business but later, in a seemingly contradictory manner, included this income with other business interest incomes to grant relief under Section 80-IA. The High Court, upon review, concluded that this inclusion was incorrect as the income was not derived in connection with the business, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 679628 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y RATNAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Business income; Fixed Deposit; Interest income; Margin money; Section 80-IA; Section 80-IA
• Section: 260A; 80-IA; 80-IA

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.82 OF 2007 DATED: 06-02-2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad-1 … Appellant And M/s Avanthi Feeds Limited … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.82 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal was admitted on 01-03-2007 by this Court. However, no substantial question of law has been formulated as required under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). Therefore, we formulate the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Tribunal, after coming to the fact finding that the particular interest income is not a business income, can give benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act in an indirect way ?” 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 17-03-2006 in relation to the assessment year 1999-2000. In this case, the issue is whether the interest income derived from a fixed deposit towards margin money can be said to be a business income in order to get benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act. The learned Tribunal, on facts, found that this income was not derived in the course of business or in connection with the business and it was derived from a fixed deposit and that the assessee is not carrying on business of any investment. 3. Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, says that the last two sentences of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal are inconsistent with the other portion of the judgment. When the learned Tribunal held that this particular income is not a business income, he contended that the relief under Section 80-IA of the Act should not have been granted and hence it was not open to the learned Tribunal to grant the relief in an indirect way. 4. Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, says that the learned Tribunal has not treated this particular income as business income, but it said in totality that if the net interest is derived by the assessee in connection with the business, it should be treated as interest income from the business as required under Section 80-IA of the Act. He therefore contends that the last portion of the judgment and order is not inconsistent with the other portion of the judgment. 5. We have heard the counsel and we have seen the fact findings of the learned Tribunal. There is no dispute that the interest income has been derived from a fixed deposit of margin money and the assessee is not carrying on investment business. According to the learned Tribunal also, the interest income cannot be said to have been derived in connection with or in the course of business. In order to give benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act, the precondition is that the interest income should be derived in connection with the business. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held so correctly and there is no quarrel with this finding by any of the parties. But the last portion of the judgment and order, in our view, is inconsistent with the former portion of the judgment. According to us, once it was held that the interest income was derived from a deposit of margin money, it cannot be ploughed back with other interest income of the whole business, meaning thereby, the earlier portion of the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal has been negatived by it in an indirect way by including this portion of interest income with other interest incomes of the business. Therefore, while answering the above question, it is held that the learned Tribunal was not justified in granting such relief and hence, we set aside the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ______________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 06-02-2014 Svv "