H.p.s.i.d.c v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ITA No.8 of 2005. Date of decision:17.3.2010. H.P.S.I.D.C. ..Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant(s).: M/s.Vishal Mohan & Y.K. Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified by not giving any relief in respect of interest earned on refinance operations and the said interest being payable to various financial institutions like IDBI, ICICI, IFCI, UTI and apex financial institutions where in the said institutions have an over riding title as getting refinance and lending of money to its constituents are integral transaction and interest payable to such said institutions need to be excluded from the taxable interest?” The parties do not dispute that an identical question of law has already been decided by this court in other proceedings between the same parties but relating to different assessment years on 3.12.2008 delivered in ITA Nos.1 & 2 of 2002 and 9&10 of 2004. This question 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes yes has been answered in para 16 of the said judgment which reads as follows: “16. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court after noticing Industrial Development Bank of India Refinance Scheme has held that amount of interest represents the aspect of rediscounting and, therefore, cannot form part of the interest income of the assessee as chargeable under the provisions of the Act and answered the above question in affirmative against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The revenue has not taken the stand that in the present case terms and conditions of refinance of the assessee by the financial institutions during the relevant period were different from the terms and conditions noticed in ITR 228 (1997) 40, hence judgment of Kerala High Court is fully applicable in the present case and substantial question or law No.2 in IT Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2002 and substantial question of law No.1 in IT Appeal Nos.9 and 10 of 2004 are decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” In the present case also the question is answered in the same terms. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 17, 2010 PV ( Sanjay Karol ), J.