9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of whether interest earned by the assessee-company under a distributorship agreement is considered as profits and gains attributable to a priority industry for the purpose of claiming relief under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Judgment Summary: The High Court of Calcutta addressed a reference related to the assessment year 1972-73 concerning an assessee-company engaged in manufacturing gears, a priority industry eligible for relief under section 80-I of the Income Tax Act. The dispute arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) categorized the interest accrued from a distributor under a distributorship agreement as income from other sources, thus disallowing relief under section 80-I. However, the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim for relief. The key question referred to the High Court was whether the interest received from the distributor should be considered as profits and gains attributable to the priority industry under section 80-I. The Court analyzed the distributorship agreement, noting that the interest was payable for delayed bill payments to ensure prompt settlement. The agreement allowed the assessee-company to charge interest based on prevailing bank rates, directly linked to the earning of profits and gains. Therefore, the Court affirmed that the interest earned was indeed attributable to the business income of the assessee-company, making it eligible for relief under section 80-I. In considering precedents cited by the Revenue's counsel, the Court distinguished cases where income was already earned versus the current scenario of interest accrual. The Court highlighted that the interest in question was directly related to the earning of profits and gains by the assessee-company, unlike the cases presented by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming their entitlement to relief under section 80-I. The judgment was delivered in favor of the assessee, with each party bearing their own costs. Separate Judgment: Justice Suhas Chandra Sen concurred with the decision.
|
