1993 (2) TMI 95 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the exemption of interest income received by an authority constituted for the marketing of commodities from fixed deposits made in banks.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Exemption under Section 10(29)
The case involved whether the interest income received by the assessee from fixed deposits in banks was exempt under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held the income as exempt, but the Revenue challenged this decision. The Revenue argued that the exemption under section 10(29) only applies to income derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for specific purposes related to marketing of commodities. The assessee contended that the income had a nexus with the activities permitted by its articles and memorandum of association. The High Court analyzed the provision of section 10(29) and emphasized that for claiming exemption, the income must be derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities. The Court held that the income in question did not meet these criteria and thus was not exempt under section 10(29).

Issue 2: Interpretation of Taxing Statute
The judgment delved into the interpretation of taxing statutes, emphasizing that equitable considerations are not relevant in tax matters. The Court highlighted the importance of interpreting statutes based on the plain and unambiguous language used, without implying or importing provisions not expressly stated. It discussed the principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the intention of the Legislature must be derived from the language used in the statute. The Court rejected the argument for a liberal construction of section 10(29) and stressed that the clear and unambiguous language of the provision must be followed. The Court concluded that the interest income was not exempt under section 10(29) and ruled in favor of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered the first question referred in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. As a result, there was no need to address the second question. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no costs incurred. Both judges, D. M. Patnaik and Arijit Pasayat, concurred with the decision.