9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1999, dated March 18, 2005, the Revenue has preferred the appeal and raised the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that hire purchase finance charges are not subject to interest-tax, without going into the nature of the financial transactions? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the first question is covered against the Revenue by an unreported decision of this court in T.C. No. 73 of 2000 (CIT v. Harita Finance Ltd., since reported in [2006] 283 ITR 370) wherein a Division Bench of this court, by judgment dated February 1, 2005, held as under: "The point involved in the question is whether the agreement entered into between the parties was a hire purchase agreement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was decided in favour of the assessee by this court as referred to above. Accordingly, in so far as the first question is concerned, following the unreported decision of this court in T.C. No. 73 of 2000, dated February 1, 2005-since reported in CIT v. Harita Finance Ltd. [2006] 283 ITR 370, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that hire purchase finance charges are not subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 2(7) as the exclusionary clause was only clarificatory in nature." Following the abovesaid proposition of law, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that interest from Government securities is not subject to interest-tax. Accordingly, the second question is also answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
