2013 (7) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l for the Revenue fairly stated before this court that the issue as to whether the car won by the assessee on draw of lots under the incentive scheme of the National Savings Scheme was liable to tax, is covered by the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Deputy Director of Small Savings [2004] 266 ITR 27 (Mad) and that the issue was again considered by the Karnataka High Court in the decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d a additional sum of Rs. 2,39,919 as interest, under section 201(1A) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.29,17,792. On the appeal before this court, it was pointed out that the scheme was not one for the promotion of sale of any goods. The investor was not offered interest payable on a larger sum, even when a smaller sum is invested. The chance given to the investor to win a prize was a free .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ery". As far as the present case is concerned, the assessee herein was allotted a Contessa car as the first prize under the National Savings Scheme. The Assessing Officer treated it as winnings from lotteries within the meaning of section 2(24)(ix) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, subject to the special rates envisaged under section 115BB of the Act. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) faile .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X