2001 PLP 2468 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus AUTOKAST LTD
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2468 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 110 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, Doraiswamy Raju and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus AUTOKAST LTD |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2468 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2468 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 110 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, Doraiswamy Raju and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2468 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus AUTOKAST LTD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. L. Verma Senior Advocate (S.W. A. Quadri, S. K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- Dr. S. Narayanan and Subramonium Prasad, Advocates for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated July 10, 1996 of the Kerala High Court in I. T. R. No. 103 of 1991.) ‑‑‑‑Interest‑‑‑Money borrowed for purchase of plant and machinery‑‑‑Placed in short‑term deposit with Bank till payment was made‑‑‑Used in bill discounting‑‑‑Taxable as income from other sources‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.56‑‑‑[CIT v. Autokast Ltd. 1999 PTD 3215 reversed]. From the decision of the Kerala High Court (see 1999 PTD 3215) holding that where the assessee kept the moneys borrowed from the Industrial Development Bank of India for purchase of plant and machinery in short term deposits in banks and used it in bill discounting until payment for the plant and machinery, the interest earned on the deposits was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources but would go to reduce the actual cost of the plant and machinery, the Department took an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court holding that the interest was taxable in the hands of the assessee. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) fol. CIT v. Autokast Ltd. 1999 PTD 3215 reversed.
Judgment & Decree
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) fol. CIT v. Autokast Ltd. 1999 PTD 3215 reversed. M. L. Verma Senior Advocate (S.W. A. Quadri, S. K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Dr. S. Narayanan and Subramonium Prasad, Advocates for Respondent. The question that was before the High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest income is not assessable to tax in the hands of the appellant?" The High Court answered the question against the Revenue. The Revenue is in appeal by special leave. It is not now in dispute that the appeal must succeed, having regard to the judgment of this Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR
172. The civil appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order under challenge is set aside. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In other words, the interest income is assessable to tax in the hands of the assessee. No order as to costs. M.B.A./941/FC Appeal allowed.