2015 (11) TMI 391 - HC - Income Tax

Interest earned on grants made by the State Government kept in fixed deposits pending utilization - whether should be treated as additional grant of the scheme or a revenue receipt exigible to tax under the head Income from other sources ? - Held that - The very purpose of granting ₹ 10 crores to the assessee was to act as a nodal agency for implementation of the scheme. There is no profit motive as the entire fund entrusted and the interest accrued therefrom from deposits has to be utilised only for the purpose of the scheme originally granted. The whole of the fund belongs to the State exchequer and the assessee has to channelise them to achieve the objects of centrally sponsored scheme of infrastructural development as specified in the Government order. Hence, interest on all these fixed deposits are considered to be capitalised and not revenue receipts to treat it as an income. The Tribunal considering these aspects and more particularly, following the judgment of this court in KUIDC case 2006 (2) TMI 114 - KARNATAKA High Court has held that the interest earned on these grants is not an income, which we do not find fault with. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest earned on grants made by the State Government kept in fixed deposits pending utilization should be treated as additional grant of the scheme or a revenue receipt exigible to tax under the head "Income from other sources".

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Treatment of Interest Earned on Grants:
The core issue in this appeal was whether the interest earned on grants provided by the State Government, which were kept in fixed deposits until their utilization, should be treated as additional grants under the scheme or as taxable income under "Income from other sources". The assessee, a government-owned company engaged in trading agricultural produce, received a grant of Rs. 10 crores from the Government of Karnataka for infrastructure improvement to promote agricultural exports. The grant was temporarily kept in fixed deposits, and the interest earned on these deposits was treated as income by the Assessing Officer and taxed accordingly.

2. Tribunal's Decision and Revenue's Challenge:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, which led to the Revenue challenging this decision. The Revenue argued that the grant did not specify any conditions regarding the utilization of interest earned, and thus, the interest should be treated as taxable income. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT, which held that interest income earned during the formative period of a company is taxable.

3. Assessee's Argument and Supporting Judgments:
The assessee contended that the interest earned should be treated as additional grants for the scheme, citing a letter from the Government of Karnataka supporting this view. The assessee relied on several judgments, including Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation, Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO, CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation, and CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd., to argue that the interest earned on temporarily parked grants should not be treated as taxable income but as part of the capital receipts.

4. Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
The court analyzed the facts and the legal precedents. It noted that the assessee-company, being a government-owned entity, received the grant specifically for infrastructure development to promote agricultural exports. The interest earned on the grant, which was temporarily kept in fixed deposits, was directed by the State Government to be treated as an additional grant and not as the company's income. The court found that the assessee had no liberty to use the interest earned for any purpose other than the specified scheme.

The court distinguished the present case from the Tuticorin Alkali case, emphasizing that the interest earned in this case had an inextricable link to the original grant and was not an investment made during the company's formative period. The court held that the facts of the case were more aligned with the Bokaro Steel Ltd. case, where the interest earned was directly connected to the project setup.

5. Final Judgment:
The court concluded that the interest earned on the fixed deposits should be capitalized and not treated as revenue receipts. It upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no fault with its conclusion that the interest earned on the grants was not taxable income. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the court found no substantial question of law for consideration.

Summary:
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the interest earned on government grants kept in fixed deposits pending utilization should be treated as additional grants under the scheme and not as taxable income under "Income from other sources". The court emphasized the specific directions from the State Government and the inextricable link between the interest earned and the original grant, aligning its decision with the principles established in the Bokaro Steel Ltd. case. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

← Previous Next →