Ita/6/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trichur v. Blaze Kuries & Loans Pvt.ltd
High Court
08 Feb 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/6/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trichur v. Blaze Kuries & Loans Pvt.ltd
Date of order
08 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/6/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trichur v. Blaze Kuries & Loans Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Thequestion raised is whether interest received by the assessee from IDBIMutual Funds, Bonds, Kissan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras istaxable under the Interest Tax Act.
Decision: Consequently we uphold the order of the Tribunal anddismiss the departmental appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN
MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931
ITA.No. 6 of 2007()
-------------------
TA.33/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT
----------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT
RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT
-------------------------
BLAZE KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD.,
IRINJALAKUDA.
BY ADV. SRI. P. BALAKRISHNAN
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08/02/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Counsel engaged for the respondent-assessee is no more. Thequestion raised is whether interest received by the assessee from IDBIMutual Funds, Bonds, Kissan Vikas Patras and Indira Vikas Patras istaxable under the Interest Tax Act. Interest tax is payable only on theinterest received on loans and advances. None of the items ofinvestments above referred is a loan or an advance made by theassessee. Consequently we uphold the order of the Tribunal anddismiss the departmental appeal.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.
(P.S. GOPINATHAN)
Judge.
kk
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue