9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 - Judge(s) : MARKANDEY KATJU., F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA. JUDGMENT This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") filed on behalf of the assessee. Heard learned counsel for the assessee and for the Department. The appellant company during the assessment year 1990-91 purchased certain securities, viz., HUDCO Shelter Bonds Series II and III, Rural Electrification Corporation Bonds. The appellant company claimed interest earned from these securities as exempt within the meaning of section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption for part of the interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the entire claim of exemption of interest on such bonds. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. S.O. 258 (E), dated April 4, 1989, reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by item (h) of sub-clause (iv) of clause (15) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby specifies '10 year-9% (tax-free) Secured Redeemable Non-Convertible HUDCO Shelter Bonds (Series-II)', issued by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, for the purpose of the said item: Provided that the benefit under the said item shall be admissible only if the holder of such bonds registers his name and holding with the said Corporation. (Sd.) Nutan Sharma, Under Secretary to the Government of India. [No. 8315/F. No. 328/20/88-WT]" Notification No. S.O. 284 (E), dated April 17, 1989 reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, including the condition that the holder of such bonds or debentures registers his name and the holding with that company, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf." The language of section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act is very clear, and hence in our opinion the assessee-company is clearly entitled to the benefit of the exemption under the aforesaid provision. We, therefore, cannot understand why the Tribunal has remanded the matter. In paragraph 10 of its order, the Tribunal has observed: "But it is not clear from the record whether the bonds were subscribed for or purchased in the market. In the event the bonds are subscribed, then interest earned would be exempted under section 10( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Sons [1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC). In CIT v. V. MR. P. Firm, Muar [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC), the Supreme Court held that equity is out of place in tax laws. As observed by Rowlatt J. in his classic statement in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. IRC [1921] 1 KB 64, 71 (cited with approval in ITO v. T.S. Devinatha Nadar [1968] 68 ITR 252; AIR 1968 SC 623): "In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." This judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala [1957] 8 STC 561; AIR 1957 SC 657 and ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
