K.k.denesan v. Ramkumar, Jj
High Court
12 Mar 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
K.k.denesan v. Ramkumar, Jj
Date of order
12 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In K.k.denesan v. Ramkumar, Jj, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930
ITA.No. 112 of 2008()
---------------------
TA.01/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT:-
-----------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. MR.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON,
MR.GEORGE K.GEORGE.
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------------------------
KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.T. Appeal NO: 112 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12[th] March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
The question raised in the appeal filed by the revenue iswhether interest tax is payable on interest received on bankdeposits maintained by the respondent/assessee. The respondentis a Government of Kerala undertaking engaged in development ofindustries including industrial financing. However, the amountinvolved in this case is interest received by them on depositsmaintained in the banks. Since interest tax is payable on intereston loans and advances obviously tax is not attracted on interestreceived on deposit maintained in banks as deposits are not in thenature of advance on loans made by the respondent to the banks.Consequently answer to the question raised is self-evident andtherefore, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the
Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
K. SURENDRA MOHANJudge
jj
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.NO:
-----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Dated:
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.