Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Phf Hire Purchase P.Ltd. , Jalandhar vs Department Of Income Tax on 21 June, 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.
BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Interest Tax Appeal No.05(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1997-98
Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. Commr. of Income Tax,
19, G.T.Road, Jalandhar. Special Range, Jalandhar
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.11(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1997-98
Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, Vs. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Special Range, Jalandhar. 19, G.T.Road, Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.15(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1998-99
Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. Commr. of Income Tax,
Nam Dev Chow, Jalandhar. Special Range, Jalandhar
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.18(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1998-99
Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, Vs. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Special Range, Jalandhar. 19, G.T.Road, Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.03(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1997-98
2
M/s. Reliable Agro Engg.Services Pvt. Ltd.vs.Addl. Commr. of Income Tax,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar. Special Range, Jalandhar
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.09(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1997-98
Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Reliable Agro Engg. Services P. Ltd.
Special Range, Jalandhar. G.T.Road, Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.16(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1998-99
M/s. Reliable Agro Engg.Services Pvt. Ltd.vs.Addl. Commr. of Income Tax,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar. Special Range, Jalandhar
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.19(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1998-99
Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Reliable Agro Engg. Services P. Ltd.
Special Range, Jalandhar. G.T.Road, Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.14(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1998-99
M/s. P.K.F. Finance Ltd. vs. Addl. Commr. of Income Tax,
Nam Dev Chowk, Jalandhar. Special Range, Jalandhar
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.17(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1998-99
Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, vs. M/s. P.K.F. Finance Ltd;
Special Range, Jalandhar Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
3
Interest Tax Appeal Nos.11 & 12(Asr)/2003
Assessment years: 1997-98 & 1998-99
M/s. Ashok Leasing Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar. Cir.2(1), Jalandhar
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal Nos.04 & 02(Asr)/2001
Assessment years:1997-98 & 1998-99
M/s. Punjab Reliable Investment Pvt. Ltd.vs.Addl. Commr. of Income Tax,
317, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar. Special Range, Jalandhar
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Interest Tax Appeal No.10(Asr)/2001
Assessment year:1997-98
Addl. Commr. of Income Tax, vs.M/s. Punjab Reliabale Investment P.Ltd
Special Range, Jalandhar 317, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by:Sh.Sandeep Vijh,CA
Department by: Sh.Tarsem Lal, DR
Intt. Tax A.No.6(Asr)/2003
Assessment year: 1998-99
M/s. Deep Motor Finance P.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Garha Road, Jalandhar City. Ward 2(5), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.No.30(Asr)/2003
Assessment year: 1999-2000
M/s. Deep Motor Finance P.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Garha Road, Jalandhar City. Ward III(2), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
4
Intt. Tax A.No.31(Asr)/2003
Assessment year: 2000-01
M/s. Deep Motor Finance Pvt.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Opp.Radio Station, Jalandhar City. Ward 3(3), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.No.32(Asr)/2003
Assessment year: 1999-2000
M/s. Deep Finance .Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Opp. Radio Station, Jalandhar City. Ward III(2), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.No.35(Asr)/2003
Assessment year: 2000-01
M/s. Deep Finance P.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Opp;.Radio Station, Jalandhar City. Ward III(2), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.Nos.36 & 37(Asr)/2003
Assessment year: 1995-96 &1996-97
M/s. PHF Hire Purchase P.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar City. Ward 3(3), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.Nos.1& 2 (Asr)/2004
Assessment year: 1999-2000, 2000-01
M/s. PHF Hire Purchase P.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar City. Ward 3(3), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
5
Intt. Tax A.Nos. 4 &5(Asr)/2004
Assessment year: 1995-96 & 96-97
Income Tax Officer vs. M/s. PHF Hire Purchase P. Ltd.
Ward III(1), Jalandhar. Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.Nos.38 & 39(Asr)/2003
Assessment years: 2000-01 & 1999-2000
M/s. PHF Investment P.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar City. Ward 3(1), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.No.6(Asr)/2004
Assessment year 2000-01
Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax vs. M/s. PHF Investment P. Ltd;
Range-III, Jalandhar. G.T.Road, Jalandhar City.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.No.3(Asr)/2004
Assessment year: 1996-97
M/s. Punjab Haryana Auto Finance P.Ltd. vs.The Income Tax Officer,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar City. Ward 3(1), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.No.40 & 41(Asr)/2003
Assessment year: 1999-2000 & 2000-01
M/s. Punjab Haryana Auto Finance P.Ltd. vs.The Income Tax Officer,
G.T.Road, Jalandhar City. Ward 3(1), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
6
Intt. Tax A.Nos.6 & 13, 14(Asr)/2001 & 2002
Assessment year: 1997-98 & 1999-2000, 2000-01
M/s. DHP Leasing P.Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer,
14-Jail Link Road, Jalandhar City. Ward 2(5) & III(4), Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Intt. Tax A.No.13 & 1(Asr)/2001 & 2003
Assessment year: 1996-97 & 1997-98
M/s. Syal Motor Finance P. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax,
14, Jail Link Road, Circle 1(1),
Jalandhar City. Jalandhar.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by:Sh.J.R.Gupta, CA
Respondent by:Sh.Tarsem Lal, DR
Date of hearing:21/06/2013
Date of pronouncement:28/06/2013
ORDER
PER BENCH ;
These 37 appeals by the assessee and the Revenue arise from different orders of CIT(A), Jalandhar, in the case of different assessees as per details given below :
S.No. ITA No. A.Y. Name of CIT(A) Date of
party order
1. 05(Asr)/2001 1997-98 Punjab Jalandhar. 14.12.2000
Kashmir
Finance Pvt.
Ltd.
2. 11(Asr)/2001 1997-98 Revenue -do -do-
7
3. 15(Asr)/2001 1998-99 -do -do- 28.03.2001
4. 18(Asr)/2001 1998-99 Revenue -d0 -do-
5. 3(Asr)/2001 1997-98 Reliable -do- 19.12.2000
Agro Engg.
Services P.
Ltd.
6. 16(Asr)/2001 1998-99 -do- -do- 28.03.2001
7. 09(Asr)/2001 1997-98 Revenue -do- 19.12.2000
8. 19(Asr)/2001 1998-99 Revenue -do- 28.03.2001
9. 14(Asr)/2001 1998-99 PKF Finance -do- -do-
P. Ltd.
10. 17(Asr)/2001 1998-99 Revenue -do- 28.03.2001
11. 11(Asr)/2003 1997-98 Ashok -do- 26.03.2003
Leasing Ltd.
12. 12(Asr)/2003 1998-99 -do- -do- -do-
13. 4(Asr)/2001 1997-98 Punjab -do- 19.12.2000
Reliable
Investment
P. Ltd.
14 2(Asr)/2003 1998-99 -do- -do- 31.01.2005
15. 10(Asr)/2001 1997-98 Revenue -do- 19.12.2000
16. 6(Asr)/2003 1998-99 Deep Motor -do- 31.03.2003
Finance Pvt.
Ltd.
17. 30(Asr)2003 99-2000 -do- -do- 30.09.2003
18. 31(Asr)/2003 2000-01 -do- -do- -do-
8
19. 32(Asr)/2003 99-2000 -do- -do- -do-
20. 35(Asr)/2003 2000-01 -do- -do- -do-
21. 36(Asr)/2003 95-96 PHF Hire -do- 22.10.2003
Purchase
P.Ltd.
22. 37(Asr)/2003 96-97 -do- -do- -do-
23. 01(Asr)/2004 99-2000 -do- -do- 25.11.2003
24. 02(Asr)/2004 2000-01 -do- -do- -do-
25 04(Asr)/2004 1995-96 Revenue -do- 22.10.2003
26. 05(Asr0/2004 96-97 Revenue -do- -do-
27. 38(Asr)/2003 2000-01 PHF -do- -do-
Investment
P.Ltd.
28. 39(Asr)/2003 99-2000 -do- -do- -do-
29. 5(Asr)/2004 2000-01 Revenue -do- -do-
30. 3(Asr)/2004 96-97 Punjab -do- 28.11.2003
Haryana
Auto
Finanace
31. 40(Asr)/2003 99-2000 -do- -do- 22.10.2003
32. 41(Asr)/2003 2000-01 -do- -do- -do-
33. 6(Asr)/2001 1997-98 DHP -do- 17.01.2001
Leasing Pvt.
Ltd.
34. 13(Asr)/2002 99-2000 -do- -do- 23.8.2002
35. 14(Asr)/2002 2000-01 -do- -do- 23.8.2002
9
36. 13(Asr)/2001 96-97 Syal Motor -do- 05.03.2001
Finance P.
Ltd.
37. 1(Asr)/2003 97-98 -do- -do- 13.12.2002
2. Since the facts in the above appeals are identical, therefore, all the appeals are being taken up by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First of all, we take up appeal in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar, in ITA No.05(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 filed by the assessee and appeal in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 by the Revenue for the same assessment year. Our decision herein in the said appeals shall be applicable in all other appeals.
3. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.05(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 are reproduced as under:
"1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming that Rs.1,70,82,089/- shown as Hire Purchase charges are chargeable interest on conjectures & surmises. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated tat appellant earned Hire charges in carrying on the business under the Hire System and these hire charges could not be confined as Interest earned warranting levy of Interest Tax. The written submissions made have not been properly appreciated.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that overdue charges at Rs.725,834 which represent penal charge for delay is receipt of instalment are covered within the purview of 'chargeable interest'.10
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the lease transactions are in the nature of finance transactions and thereby confirming that the income element of the lease transactions at Rs.35,69,922 is chargeable interest on conjectures & surmises. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in relying primarily on the decision in the case of the sister concern for earlier assessment year. Also the written submissions made have not been properly appreciated.
4. That the Ld. A.O. was not justified in charging interest u/s 12A."
4. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 are reproduced as under:
"1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as also the legal position involved therein, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.11,58,800/- made by the A.O. by holding that interest on KVPs is not chargeable to interest under the interest tax Act, 1974.
1.a While allowing the relief of 1 above, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the interest on securities is exempt from charging of interest tax only in the cases of Banking Companies to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1944) applies while the assessee's is not the case of a banking company.
2. That, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the A.O. be restored.
3. That the appellant requests for leave to add or amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off."
5. In ground No.1 of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee had claimed that it was earning Hire Purchase charges which should not be 11 considered as interest on loans and advances for the purpose of Interest Tax Act. The Ld. counsel had relied on the CBDT Circular No.760 dated 13.1.1998 as well as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Madras, A-Bench in the case of Harita Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT. The A.O. however, did not accept the contention of the assessee. It was pointed out that as per circular, interest tax was leviable on loan transactions and as to what constitutes hire purchase transaction was to be decided as per terms of agreement, nature of arrangement between supplier of the asset and the hire purchase company and the end user of the asset. The A.O. however, pointed out as follows:
"It has already been seen from Income Tax file of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd; associate concern of assessee where the nature of transaction and the documents entered into for effecting such transactions were explained to be same as in assessee's case that asset stands purchased in the name of the customer and even the supplier do not have any account of assessee in its books of accounts. From the hire purchase agreement entered into by the assessee with its customer, it appears that the intention of the assessee in getting the hire purchase agreement signed is to secure the return of loan advanced to the customer and on fulfillment of these obligations, the vehicle is transferred to the customer. The transaction is, therefore, finance transaction and the same is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finanace Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1996SCC.1178).
2.1. Coming to the decision of Harita Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT, the AO pointed out that in the said case only hire purchase agreement had been examined without examining other documents like Registration Book, Insurance and sale invoice etc. The AO also relied on decision of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. vide appellate order dated 25.2.1996 in appeal No.60/95-96 wherein issue was decided against the assessee. The Ld. counsel also pointed out to 12 the decision in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 1992-93 and 1993- 94 which were decided against the assessee. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT(A) vide order dated 20.10.1999 in appeal No.445/98-99/CIT(A)/JAL. In the case of M/s. Mand Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1996-97. It was further pointed out as follows:
"The case laws quoted by the assessee were considered by the CIT(A) while deciding Income Tax matter for the asstt. years 1995-96 and 1996-97 in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd; a group concern, and therein after examining all the facts the transactions effected in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd; though categorized as hire purchase transactions were treated as finance transactions. The documentary evidence prepared in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. is similar as in the case of assessee and even in the case of assessee for the asstt. year 1996-97 while deciding the income tax appeal, ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. was applied into finance transactions. Therefore, hire purchase charges earned at Rs.1,70,82,089/- is chargeable to tax under section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act."
6. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. and the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in para 2.3 to 3.3 for the sake of clarity are reproduced as under:
"2.3. I have considered the arguments of the Ld. counsel and I have also perused the documents relating to alleged hire purchase agreement between the assessee i.e. M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finanace Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, VPO: Chotala, The. Dasuya, Distt. Hoshiarpur. The Ld. Counsel had furnished the copy of the hire purchase agreement, copy of the vehicle purchased by Sh. Balbir Singh from M/s. Cargo Motors Ltd. under H.P.A with M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the Registration book of vehicle standing in the name of Sh. Balbir Singh and copy of the insurance cover note issue by M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. from Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala showing he name of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Balbir Singh of Sh. Sohan Singh. A copy of 13 certificate from M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. issued to M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. dated 13.10.98 was also filed wherein it was pointed that the lessor company is entitled to the compensation in the case of total loss of the vehicle.
2.4. The facts in this case are not different from the facts in the case of M/s. Mand Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. for the asstt. year 1996-97 which was decided by appellate order dated 22.10.99 in appeal No.445/98-99/CIT(A)/JAL. In the said decision of ITAT, Madras A-Bench in the case of Harita Finance Ltd was also discussed. These issues have also been discussed in detail in the appellate order dated 2.4.98 vide appeal No.414/97- 98/CIT(A)/JAL in the case of M/s. Dosanjh Hire Purchase (P) Ltd Jalandhar for the asstt. year 1995-96. In the said case, the decision in the case of K.K. Johar & Co. (supra) has been discussed in detail along with implication of Board's circular No.760 dated 13.1.98.
2.5. In the light of these decision as well as in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance vs. State of Kera AIT (1966) SCC 1178, I am unable to agree with the contention of the Ld. counse. Coming to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Minerals 239 ITR 775 and Podar Cement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held that if a registration is in the name of a person he should not be held the owner of that asset. As pointed out by the ld. counsel himself, it was only held that registration was not the test of ownership of the immovable asset. What is being discussed herein is the case of movable asset which has been purchased by Sh. Balbir Singh from M/s. Cargo Motors Ltd. which has been registered in the name of Sh. Balbir Singh and which was being used by Sh. Balbir Singh. It is not possible to agree that in these circumstances, Sh. Balbir Singh should not be held as owner, I am unable to agree that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Mineral or other cases relied on by the Ld. counsel help the case of the appellant. Some of these cases have also been discussed while disposing off the appeal in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. for asstt. year 1995-96 and 1996-97. In the light of above, the arguments of the ld. counsel are rejected and the action of the A.O. in treating the hire purchase charges as a 14 part of chargeable interest for the purpose of interest tax is upheld.
2.6. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. counsel had also argued that in any case, the AO was not justified in treating over due charges included in hire purchase charges as chargeable interest. The Ld. counsel submitted the detail of hire purchase charges and over due charges earned in Jalandhar, Delhi and Nawanshhar branches of the assessee company as follows:
Branch Hire Purchase Over due Total
Charges charges
Jalandhar 9975322 363228 10338550
Delhi 5762704 340140 6102844
Nawanshahar 618229 22466 640695
16356255 725834 17082089
3.1. It was argued that over due charges are penal charges for delay in payment in installment of hire purchase and can not be described as interest on loan and advances as provided in section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. The reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Travancore 228 ITR 40 (Kerala). It was argued that in this case the Hon'ble High Court has held that the amount demanded and collected by the bank in event of default in regard to over due bills was only compensation and is to be excluded from the chargeable interest. It was argued that in view of this, sum of Rs.7,25,834/- in any case should be excluded from the chargeable interest.
3.2. I have considered the arguments of the Ld. counsel. This issue has been considered by me while disposing off the appeal in the case of Mand Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y.1996-97 vide appellate order dated 22.10.99 (supra). The relevant portion of same is reproduced below:
"4.1. I have considered the above arguments of the Ld. counsel. There are conflicting judgments on the issue whether amount charged on over due bill by a bank is interest or not for 15 the purpose of Interest Tax Act. The decisions of Kerala High Court (228 ITR 40) and M.P. High Court ( 172 ITR 24) are against the revenue whereas the decision of Karnataka High Court (175 ITR 607) is in favour of the revenue. However, the decisions regarding issue of overdue bills in banking industry is not applicable to the present case. The factual matrix regarding bills purchased/discounted by a bank was explained by Hon'ble Kerala High Court as follows:
"......the negotiations of bills drawn at a usance (usance bill) alone is termed as "discount" and negotiatiaons of demand bills is termed as "purchase". The exchange or earnings on demand bills are not classified either under "interest" or "discount" but only under "commission, exchange and brokerage" and hence, it is contended by the assessee, that it is not includible for the purpose of the Interest-tax Act. In the case of a demand bill, normally it becomes payable immediately on the presentation to the drawee. Such a demand bill is purchased at part from its maker and the fee or the charge earned in regard to the service rendered by the bank in regard to the bill and its subsequent collection is called "exchange" and such amount is classified in the accounts by the bank under a separate head called "exchange" in contra distinction to the amount earned on usance bill which is included under "interest and discount".
Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Act 26 of 1881) relating to the liability of the maker of the note as well as of the acceptor of the bill also makes the position clear in terms of the legal terminology in the context that the maker of the note is bound to pay the amount on maturity as well as the acceptor of the bill of exchange is also bound to pay the amount thereof to the holder on demand. The said provision also specifies the position in the event of the default of such payment making it statutorily clear that such maker or acceptor is bound to compensate any party to the note or bill for any loss or damage sustained by him and caused by such default.
Thus, the relevant statutory provision characterizes the amount demand and collected by the bank in the event of the 16 default in regard to overdue bills as compensation sustainable in the context caused by such default.
4.2. When the bill is purchased/discounted by the bank, the funds are released to maker of the bills (drawer) whereas the overdue charges are recovered from the acceptor of the bills (Drawee). This is entirely different situation as compared to the case of appellant where the overdue charges are recovered from the same party to whom funds were made available and who had not paid the instalments(s) in time. So the decision cited by the Ld. counsel is not applicable to the facts of the case and so the arguments of the Ld. counsel in this regard are rejected."
3.3. In view of above, the arguments of the Ld. counsel are rejected and the action of the A.O. in including Rs.7,25,834/- being part of Rs.1,70,82,089/- as chargeable interest is upheld."
7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Sandeep Vijh, CA argued that in the last appeal decided by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1992-93 and 1993-94, the matter was restored to the file of the A.O. to frame assessment afresh in accordance with the Circular No.760 dated 12.1.1998 issued by CBDT. The order was based on the earlier order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench dated 31.3.2004 in the case of Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1992-93 and 1993-94. Coy of the order in this case and that in the case of Deep Hire Purchase are enclosed at page no. 1 to 9. The order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in the case of Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. 17 Ltd. was contested by assessee before the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Jurisdictional High Court has in it order dated 17.11.2004 reported at 274 ITR 69 upheld the remanding of the order to the file of the Assessing Officer.
8. The Ld. DR, Mr. Tarsem Lal, on the other hand, argued and invited our attention to the paper book page 38 of the assessee which is the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. vs CIT in ITA No.158 of 2002 (O&M) dated 13.05.2013 and others that ratio deci-dendie of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the said judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, has only held that if the vehicles are leased out, lessor would be entitled to depreciation, as the vehicle was being used for the purpose of business though not by the lessor itself. Since in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd; ITAT, Amritsar Bench has held that the assessee is engaged in the financing business, as such levy of interest tax was attracted in the present case . Therefore, the Ld. DR, Mr. Tarsem Lal prayed to confirm the action of the ld. CIT(A).
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We have taken into consideration the arguments made by the Ld. DR, Mr. Tarsem Lal with regard to the applicability of the decision of M/s. PKF 18 Finance Ltd; by this Bench, where it has been held that the assessee is engaged in the financing business as such interest tax is leviable. It is pertinent to mention here that on identical facts in the present case i.e. M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; as submitted and argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Sandeep Vijh, CA, the matter for the assessment years 1992-93 & 1993-94 was restored to the file of the AO to frame assessment afresh in accordance with Circular No.760 dated 12.1.1998 issued by CBDT. The said order was based on the earlier order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench dated 31.03.2004 in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment years 1992-93 & 1993-94 placed at PB 1 to 9. The order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd; when contested by assessee before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court being the Jurisdictional High Court, which is dated 17.11.2004 and reported at 274 ITR 69, where the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, has upheld the remanding of the order to the file of the Assessing Officer. The said order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is placed at PB 10 to 14. Therefore, being the identical facts, as in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. where the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high Court has confirmed the remanding of the matter to the file of the AO by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, following the same we set aside the 19 impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law and broader guidelines given in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and the Interest Tax Appeal Nos. 17 to 31(Asr)/1996 vide ITAT order dated 31.03.2004. For the sake of clarity, the decision in assessee's own case in Interest Tax Appeal Nos. 33, 34 & 2(Asr)/1996 & 97 for the assessment years 1992-93, 93-94 & 94-95 in para 2 & 3 available at page-2 of the PB is reproduced as under:
"2. The only issue raised in these appeals in the attractability of Interest Tax Act, 1974. The Ld. DR stated that the facts and circumstances of these appeals are similar to that of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Jalandhar and view taken therein should be followed in the instant appeals.
3. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the relevant material on record, we find force in the submissions raised in this regard. The case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd; Jalandhar (supra) has since been decided in Interest Tax Appeal Nos. 17 & 31(Asr)/1996, vide our order dated 31.03.2004. In that case, the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication. Following our view taken in that case, set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law and the broader guidelines given therein."
9.1 Also the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Private Ltd. vs. ITO in Interest Tax Appeal nos. 17 & 31(Asr)/1996 for the assessment years 1992-93 & 1993-94 dated 20 31.03.2004. The relevant para is reproduced of the said order for the sake of clarity is reproduced as under:
"A careful reading of the extracts of the above circular divulges that all the hire purchase transactions cannot be construed as financing transactions and it is not open to the department to levy tax on the hire charges resulting from the genuine hire-purchase transactions. It is the duty of the Assessing Authority to separate grain from the chaff by examining all the transactions separately with a view to draw a line between the genuine hire purchase transactions and other transactions which are merely in the nature of financing. We find that in the instant case, no such exercise was carried out by the Revenue officials for separating the genuine hire purchase transactions on the anvil of the legal position and statutory provisions discussed in the foregoing paras.
The assessee had initially offered RS. 4 lacs and odd under section 2(7) for tax after including Rs.2282/- on account of interest stated to be other than hire charges. Subsequently, it turned away from its earlier disclosure by filing a revised return claiming the total amount as hire charges beyond the scope of the Act including a sum which was earlier stated to be other than hire charges. This claim of the assessee also appears to be violative of the provisions of the Act. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the A.O. We order accordingly. The Assessing Authority is directed to scrutinize all cases one by one to sort out genuine hire purchase transactions and then put to charge the interest by whatever name called on the rest of the advances. Needless to say, he will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee while disposing of the case in accordance with law.
7. It is common ground of both the sides that the facts and circumstances in the assessment year 1993-94 are similar to that of assessment year 1992-93 discussed supra. Following our view, taken above, we send the matter back to the AO for denovo adjudication, in conformity, with our above observations.21
8. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes."
9.2. The decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. in IT appeal Nos. 194 & 195 of 2004 dated 17.11.2004 reported in (2005) 274 ITR 69 (P&H) in para 8 & 9 is reproduced for the sake of clarity as under:
"8. We have heard counsel for the appellant and have perused the records. It is clear that the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the assessee that the hire-purchase financing is one of the recognised modes in the commercial world and the hire charges cannot be equated with interest. The matter has been remanded only to find out if there are any transactions of simple financing. The Tribunal has clearly observed that in the return originally filed, the assessee had included sums of Rs. 2,282 and Rs. 2,267 for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, respectively, on account of interest in addition to the hire-purchase charges. It is thus clear that in addition to hire-purchase transactions, there were transactions involving simple financing as well. The authorities below had not separated such transactions from the hire-purchase transactions because they were of the view that hire-purchase charges were assessable as chargeable interest under -the Act. Since this finding of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Interest-tax (Appeals) was reversed by the Tribunal, it became necessary to separate the hire-purchase transactions from the simple loan transactions. There were two courses open for the Tribunal. It could have under-taken the said exercise itself or directed the Assessing Officer to do the needful. By choosing to do the latter, we do not think that the Tribunal has, in any manner, enlarged the scope of the controversy before it. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for verifying the factual position in respect of all the transactions. The orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Interest-tax (Appeals) do not show that they had examined all the transactions. The Assessing Officer did not examine the hire-purchase transactions because according to him, hire-22
purchase charges were nothing but interest. The Commissioner of Interest-tax (Appeals) analysed only two transactions and that too to support the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the hire-purchase transactions were, in substance, arrangements for advancing loans to various persons. This finding has clearly been reversed by the Tribunal. Therefore, in our view, there is no scope for the Assessing Officer to base the fresh order on remand on the basis of the findings of the Commissioner of Interest-tax (Appeals) in respect of those two trans-actions. The effective findings of the Tribunal, as reproduced earlier, clearly show that the scope of remand is merely to separate genuine hire-purchase transactions from transactions which are merely in the nature of financing. Otherwise, the Tribunal has accepted the assessee's claim that hire-purchase charges earned on hire-purchase transactions cannot be treated as interest under the Act.
9. We also do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the asses-see that the Tribunal has based its decision on Board's Circular No. 760 dated January 13, 1998. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in favour of the assessee that hire charges of genuine hire-purchase arrangements did not fall within the definition of interest under section 2(7) of the Act. The reference to the said Board's circular is only to show that even the Board accepts this position.
10. We are, therefore, satisfied that these appeals have been filed merely on the basis of an apprehension that the Assessing Officer is bound to misconstrue the orders of the Commissioner of Interest-tax (Appeals) and levy tax on the hire-purchase charges on the basis of the findings recorded by him. As already discussed, we do not find any scope for the assessee to entertain such an apprehension.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these two appeals which are dismissed in limine."
10. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. Deep Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., we remand the 23 matter to the file of the A.O. to separate genuine hire purchase transactions which are merely in the nature of financing in view of our decision in the case of M/s. Deep hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 17 & 31(Asr)1996 (supra). The AO is accordingly directed to scrutinize all the cases one by one to sort out genuine hire purchase transactions and decide the issue denovo in view of our findings hereinabove. Thus, ground 1 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
11. With regard to ground No.2, the ld. counsel for the assessee argued before the ld. CIT(A) that the AO was not justified in treating the overdue charges included in hire purchases charges as chargeable interest.
12. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted the detail of hire-purchase charges and over-due charges earned in Jalandhar, Delhi and Nawanshahar branches, which is available at PB-4 of CIT(A)'s order. The Ld. counsel for the assessee argued before the Ld. CIT(A) that over-due charges are penal charges for delay in payment in installment of hire purchase and cannot be described as interest on loan and advances as provided in section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Travancore (228 ITR 40) (Kerala), where it has been held that the amount demanded 24 and collected by the bank in the event of default in regard to over due bills was only compensation and is to be excluded from the chargeable interest. It was argued that in view of this, sum of Rs.7,25,834/- in any case should be excluded from the chargeable interest. The contention of the assessee was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) vide para 3.3 of his order, as reproduced hereinabove.
13. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Sandeep Vijh, CA submitted and argued that as per the provisions of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 only the interest on loans and advances is to be treated as chargeable interest for the purpose of this Act. It is clearly defined in Section 2(7) that:
"interest means interest on loans and advances made in India......"
Thus interest is treated as "chargeable interest" for the purpose of Interest Tax Act only if it is interest on loans and advances. In other words, if the underlying base is not a "loan" or an "advance", it is not possible to take the income or accrual there from as "interest" for the purposes of this Act. The overdue charges earned therefore, cannot be described as chargeable interest. Detail of hire purchase charges showing the element of overdue charges, as filed before the authorities below is enclosed at page no. xx. Overdue charges are a penal charge for delay in payment and cannot be described as "interest on loans and advances". Reliance is placed on the decision of the 25 Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Travancore reported at 228 ITR 40 wherein it was held that the amount demanded and collected by the bank in the event of default in regard to overdue bills is only compensation and is to be excluded from chargeable interest. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 15 to 20. It has been held by the I.T.A.T., Mumbai "H" Bench in the case of BFIL Finance Ltd. vs. ITO reported at 17 SOT 631 that the overdue interest on account of delayed payment of bill discounting transactions, hire purchase charges and lease rental is outside the purview of chargeable interest. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 21 to 24. Also, it was held by the I.T.A.T., Mumbai 'J' Bench in the case of Central Bank of Indian Vs. JCIT reported at 99 ITD 34 that the charges received from credit card holders on overdue payment cannot be considered as interest on loans and advances and consequently the provisions of Interest Tax Act will not apply. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 25 to 28. Similarly it has been held by the I.T.A.T., Delhi 'B' Bench in the case of GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 101 TTJ 298 that interest on late payment of lease rent, hire purchase charges is not interest on loans and advances and thus not exigible to interest tax. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 29 to 34. The I.T.A.T. , Ahmadabad 'A' Bench has in the case of ACIT vs. 26 Harsolina finance held that interest on late payment of installment of hire purchase charge is not liable for inclusion in chargeable interest under the Interest Tax Act. Copy of the above referred decision is enclosed at page no. 35 to 37. Thus the overdue charges at Rs. 725,834/- cannot in any case be treated as chargeable interest. The CIT(A) at the time of disposing off the appeal relied upon his decision in the case of Mand Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1996-97 wherein it was observed that there were two High Courts in favour of the assessee and one against the assessee and strongly emphasized the fact that discounting charges recovered by the Bank are different from the overdue charges recovered from the same party and accordingly the decisions cited are not applicable and thus decided the matter against the assessee. Firstly, it is submitted that the decision in the case of BFIL Finance Ltd. (supra), Central Bank of India (supra), GE Capital Transportation ((supra)) and Harsolia Finance ((supra)) do not deal with discounting charges recovered by the Bank but specifically speak about delayed payment of hire purchase charges and credit card holders and these are recovered from the party concerned itself. The reasoning thus given by the CIT(A) stands negated by subsequent judicial decisions. It may also be pointed out that in case there are two interpretations, the one favouring the 27 assessee shall prevail. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CED v. R. Kanakasabai reported at 89 ITR 251.
14. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below.
15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. This issue i.e. whether interest overdue bills has to be considered as chargeable interest under the Interest Tax Act, has been decided by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Travancore (supra), where it has been held that interest on over-due bills is not chargeable interest and also interest earned in refinancing operations is excludible from chargeable interest. Also in the case of BFIL Finance Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, ITAT Mumbai Bench vide its order dated 9th May, 2007 reported in (2007) 17 SOT 631 (Mumbai) has held that only the interest on the loans and advances is chargeable under the Act but overdue interest against delayed payments on account of bill discounting transactions, hire-purchase instalments and lease rental payment is not chargeable interest. Since the same was compensation for damages due to delayed payments. It was held by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Central Bank of India vs. Jt. C.I.T. vide order dated 19th Sept., 2005 reported in (2006) 99 ITD 34 (Mumbai) that service charges received by the assessee 28 bank from credit card holders on overdue payments could not be considered as interest on loans and advances and consequently are not exigible under the Interest Tax Act, 1974. It was held by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT vide order dated 24th Feb., 2006, reported in (2006) 101 TTJ (Del) 298 that interest on delayed payment of lease rent, hire purchase instalment etc. is not interest on loans and advances but is compensation for late payment and hence not exigible to interest tax. In the case of ACIT vs. Harsolia Finance Himatnagar, the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in Interest Tax Appeal No.01/Ahd/2005 dated 28th August, 2008, held as under:
"10. As regards other issues regarding receipt of interest charged on delay in payment of instalment of hire purchase charges and receipt of interest from banks, it is evident from the material placed on record that the same are not liable for inclusion in chargeable interest under the Interest Tax Act. E do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue for the reasons stated therein. Otherwise also, we find support from the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd. cited supra on these issues. Accordingly, these two grounds of the revenue are dismissed."
15.1 Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decisions cited hereinabove, the overdue charges cannot be treated as chargeable interest and the same have to be excluded from the levy of interest tax. We order accordingly. Thus, ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed.
29
16. As regards ground No.3, the brief facts are that the A.O. observed that the assessee had claimed to be carrying out lease transactions in addition to hire purchase transactions. The A.O. also observed that even lease transactions were considered in the nature of finance transactions in the Income Tax assessment. The A.O. asked the assessee as to why component of interested embedded in the lease rent should not be brought to tax as chargeable interest u/s 4(2) of the Interest Tax Act. The assessee filed a leter dated 31.1.2000 and objected to the amount being treated as part of the amount being treated as pert of the chargeable interest. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation and pointed out that in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. a sister concern of the assessee for the A.Y. 1995-96 and 1996-97 the transactions effected by the assessee were treated as in the nature of Finance Transactions. It was also pointed out that the transactions made by the assessee were similar as in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. and therefore, in this case also these have to be treated as in the nature of finance transactions. Accordingly, the A.O. included Rs.35,69,922/- which were determined during the Income Tax assessment proceedings as part of the chargeable interest of the assessee.
30
17. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. vide para 4.3 of his order.
18. The Ld. counsel for the assessee Sh. Sandeep Vijh, CA submitted and argued that it was earlier held that the lease rent transactions were in the nature of finance transactions and thereby the addition of lease rent to chargeable interest was confirmed by the CIT(A). The present position is that lease transactions have been treated as genuine lease transactions and depreciation on the vehicles given on lease has been allowed. The Jurisdictional High Court has in the case of PKF Finance Ltd. for the Assessment Year 1995-96 decided the issue in favour of the assessee and following this decision various other group cases have been decided in favour of the assessee group in the hearing fixed for 14.06.2013. In view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court which is enclosed at page no. 38 to 44 and which is based on the decision of the Supreme Court, the lease rent charges which are for the vehicles given on rent for which depreciation on vehicles has also been allowed, cannot be treated as finance transactions and consequently the lease rent of Rs. 35,69,922/- [after excluding the capital component] has to be excluded from the chargeable interest computed by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The 31 definition of interest as given in section 2(7) and as reproduced at point no. 2 above also supports our contention.
19. The Ld. DR, Mr. Tarsem Lal, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below.
20. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of m/s. PKF Finanace Ltd. has earlier held that the lease rent transactions were in the nature of finance transactions and thereby the addition of lease rent to chargeable interest was confirmed by the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. But as submitted and argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Sandeep Vijh that lease transactions have been treated as genuine lease transactions and depreciation on the vehicles given on lease has been allowed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PKF Finance Ltd for the assessment year 1995-96 and the issue is in favour of the assessee vide order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, placed at PB 38 to 44 which is dated 13.05.2013. The decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is based on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 3 SCC 541. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PKF Finance Ltd; and others, the lease rent charges for the vehicles given on rent 32 for which depreciation on vehicles have been allowed, cannot be treated as financing transaction and therefore, lease rent of Rs.35,69,920/- has been excluded from the chargeable interest tax computed by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). We order accordingly. Thus, ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
21. Ground No.4 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A which is consequential in nature
22. In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No.05(Asr)/2001 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
23. Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98. In ground No.1 & 1.a. the revenue has raised the issue with regard to interest on KVPs. The AO included Rs.11,58,800/- as part of chargeable interest which has been reversed by the ld. CIT(A) following the decision in the case of Syal Leasing Ltd.
24. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee Mr. Sandeep Vijh, CA that the interest income earned from bonds/securities does not fall within the purview of chargeable interest. As per the provisions of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 only the interest on loans and advances is to be treated as chargeable interest for the purpose of this Act. The definition of interest under section 2(7) given above clearly substantiates our position.Interest is 33 taken as 'chargeable interest' for the purpose of interest Tax Act only if it is interest on loans and advances. In other words, if the underlying base is not a "loan" or an "advance", it is no possible to take the income or accrual threfrom as 'interest' for the purposes of this Act. Section 2(7) clearly provides that only the interest on loans and advances made in Indian is within the purview of interest. There is no mention of 'Interest on Investment'. There is nowhere any express or implied intention of law makers to include interest on investment within the ambit of Interest Tax Act. Had this been the intention of the legislature, it would have been simply provided that interest earned is subject to levy of interest tax without specifically mentioning the words ' loans and advances'. 24.1 The above submission make it absolutely clear that the phrase "loan & advances" is quite and absolutely different terminology 'Investment in bonds'. Bonds are securities which are quite different from the loans & advances. Bonds have always been treated on different footing then loans & advances under various enactments. This is corroborated from the following:
A) The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 defines securities as under:
"Securities" include -34
i) Shares, scrips, bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other marketable securities of a like nature in or of any incorporated company or other body corporate.
ii) Government securities, iia) Such other instruments as may be declared by the Central Government to be Securities; and
iii) Rights of interest in securities.
The KVP's thus have been defined as securities.
B) Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956: As per Schedule the Investments are to be shown separately and loans & advances are to be shown separately. Thus in Companies Act, 1956 clear distinction has been made between the two.
24.2. The above definitions clearly substantiate that it was never the intention of law to bring interest on investments within the ambits of Interest Tax Act. The Investment of bonds has been made by us to comply with the RBI directions regarding maintenance of liquid asset and have accordingly been reflected as investments in the Balance Sheet. It has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. 35 reported at 228 ITR 697 that interest on debentures shown as investment in the Balance Sheet would be outside the purview of Interest Tax Act. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 45 to 47. It has been held by the Mumbai 'A' Bench in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. JCIT reported at 82 ITD 749 that interest earned on bonds is not chargeable to interest tax. Copy of the above decisions is enclosed at page no. 48 to 51. Similar view has been expressed by the Delhi 'E' bench in the case of Punjab National Bank V. DCIT reported at 87 TTJ 11. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 52 to 54. Also the Allahabad 'A' Bench has in the case of Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT reported at 79 ITD 56 held the interest earned on investments made as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India would not be covered within the purview of chargeable interest. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 55 to 58.
24.3. Besides the above citations given before the CIT(A), we would also like to draw your attention to the decision of the I.T.A.T., Delhi 'A' Bench in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported at 89 ITD 520 wherein it was held that the interest on debentures, bonds and securities is not chargeable to interest tax. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page 36 no. 59 to 61. Similar view was expressed by the I.T.A.T., Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. reported at 83 TTJ
345. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 62 to 64. The Madras High Court had in the case of CIT vs. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. reported at 282 ITR 428 held that the interest on government securities, tax free securities, bonds, treasury bill and investment deposits scheme of IDBI were not liable under the Interest Tax Act. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 65 & 66. The Madras High Court has in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. reported at 202 CTR 387 in a direct decision on the issue held that interest on KVP and Government Bonds is not subject to Interest Tax. Copy of the above decision is enclosed at page no. 67 & 68.
24.4. It is therefore submitted that there is no justification whatsoever in treating interest on KVP as interest on loans and advances and treating it as chargeable interest. The ground thus raised by the revenue thus deserves to be dismissed.
25. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of both the authorities below.
26. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are convinced with the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. 37 Sandeep Vijh,CA and the decisions relied upon in the case of CIT vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. reported at 228 ITR 697 (Madras), Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. JCIT reported at 82 ITD 749 (ITAT Mumbai), Punjab National Bank vs. DCIT reported at 87 TTJ 11 and Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT reported at 79 ITD 56 and other decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee and we are of the view that interest of KVPs could not treated as interest on loans and advances which is distinct from investment in securities, bonds, debentures and could not be classified under section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), who as rightly excluded interest tax from the purview of Interest Tax Act. Thus, ground No. 1 & 1a of the revenue are dismissed.
27. Grounds No. 2 & 3 are general in nature, therefore, do not require any adjudication.
28. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.11(Asr)2001 is dismissed.
29. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.15(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 as under:
38
30. Ground No.1 is general in nature and therefore, do not require any adjudication.
31. As regards ground No.2, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.2,69,92,339/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
32. As regards ground No.3 with regard to overdue charges earned at RS.9,70,739/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts in the present case except the amount are identical to facts in ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable 39 to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
33. As regards ground No.4 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs. 58,51,660/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed.
34. Ground No.4 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
35. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.15(Asr)/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
36. Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.18(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 in the case Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
37. As regards ground No. 1 & 1a being the interest on KVPs amounting to Rs.14,15,254/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 40 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 & 1a of the Revenue are dismissed.
38. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
39. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 in the case of M/s. Reliable Agro Engg. Services Pvt. Ltd. as under:
40. As regards ground No.1, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.70,41,329/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
41
41. As regards ground No.2 with regard to overdue charges earned at Rs. 3,02,860/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts in the present case except the amount are identical to facts in ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
42. As regards ground No.3 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.18,63,230/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed.
43. Ground No.4 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
44. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.03(Asr)/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
42
45. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.16(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the case of M/s. Reliable Agro Engg. Services Pvt. Ltd. as under:
46. As regards ground No.1, the same is general in nature and does not require any adjudication.
47. As regards ground No.2, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.71,80,727/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
48. As regards ground No.3 with regard to overdue charges earned at Rs. 3,53,383/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts in the present case except the amount are identical to facts in ground No.2 in 43 the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
49. As regards ground No.4 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.12,32,186/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed.
50. Ground No.5 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
51. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.16(Asr)/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
52. Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.9(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in the case M/s. Reliable Agro Engg. Services (P) Ltd. as under:
53. As regards ground No. 1 & 1a being the interest on KVPs amounting to Rs.6,09,786/-/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us 44 hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 & 1a of the Revenue are dismissed.
54. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.9(Asr)/2001 is dismissed.
55. Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.19(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 in the case of M/s. Reliable Agro Engg. Services Pvt. Ltd. as under:
56. As regards ground No. 1 & 1a being the interest on KVPs amounting to Rs.7,48,878/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 & 1a of the Revenue are dismissed.
57. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.19(Asr)/2001 is dismissed. 45
58. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the case of M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. as under:
59. As regards ground No.1, the same is general in nature and does not require any adjudication.
60. As regards ground No.2, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.1,00,93,109/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
61. As regards ground No.3 with regard to overdue charges earned at Rs. 8,53,454/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts in the present case except the amount are identical to facts in ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), our order in ITA 46 No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
62. As regards ground No.4 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.13,04,147/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed.
61. Ground No.5 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
62. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14(Asr)/2001 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
63. Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.17(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 in the case M/s. PKF Finance Ltd. as under:
64. As regards ground No. 1 & 1a being the interest on KVPs amounting to Rs.82,048/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical 47 facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 & 1a of the Revenue are dismissed.
65. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.17(Asr)/2001 is dismissed.
66. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.11(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1997-98 in the case of M/s. Ashok Leasing Limited Jalandhar as under:
67. As regards ground No.1, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.3,80,182/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
68. As regards ground No.2 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.121,077/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of 48 M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed.
69. Ground No.3 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
70. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.11(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
71. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.12(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the case of M/s. Ashok Leasing Limited Jalandhar as under:
72. As regards ground No.1, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.5,41,898/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the 49 said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
73. As regards ground No.2 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.88,695/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed.
74. Ground No.3 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
75. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.12(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
76. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.4(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 in the case of M/s. Punjab Reliable Investment Pvt. Ltd. as under:
77. As regards ground No.1, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.75,79,257/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir 50 Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
78. As regards ground No.2 with regard to overdue charges earned at Rs. 9,19,445/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts in the present case except the amount are identical to facts in ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
79. As regards ground No.3 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.21,03,965/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be 51 identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed.
80. Ground No.4 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
81. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.04(Asr)/2001 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
82. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No2(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the case of M/s. Punjab Reliable Investment Pvt. Ltd. as under:
83. As regards ground No.1, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.62,18,834/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
52
84. As regards ground No.2 with regard to overdue charges earned at Rs. 2,85,425/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts in the present case except the amount are identical to facts in ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.
85. As regards ground No.3 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.14,93,471/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.4 of the assessee is allowed.
86. Ground No.4 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
86. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.02(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
53
87. Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.10(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in the case M/s. Punjab Reliable Investment Pvt. Ltd. as under:
88. As regards ground No. 1 & 1a being the interest on KVPs amounting to Rs.6,10,233/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 & 1a of the Revenue are dismissed.
89. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.10(Asr)/2001 is dismissed.
90. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.6(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the case of M/s. Deep Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
83. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.9,89,677/- which 54 facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
91. Ground No.6 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
92. Ground No.7 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
93. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.06(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
94. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.30(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 in the case of M/s. Deep Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
95. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.11,20,336/- 55 which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
96. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.99,694/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
97. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
98. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
56
99. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.30(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
100. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.31(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y.2000-01 in the case of M/s. Deep Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
101. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.15,47,502/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
102. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.64,201/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. 57 Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
103. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
104. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
105. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.31(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
106. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.32(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 in the case of M/s. Deep Finance Ltd. as under:
107. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.10,41,881/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically 58 applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
108. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.84,119/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
109. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
110. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
111. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.32(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
112. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.35(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y.2000-01 in the case of M/s. Deep Finance Ltd. as under:
59
113. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.19,28,820/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
114. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.49,574/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
115. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
60
116. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
117. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.35(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
118. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.36(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1995-96 in the case of M/s. PHF Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. as under:
119. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.7,02,337/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
120. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.27,314/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of 61 M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
121. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
122. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.36(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
123. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.37(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1996-97 in the case of M/s. PHF Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. as under:
124. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.8,24,951/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order 62 in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
125. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.74,840/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
126. Ground No.7 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
127. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.37(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
128. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 in the case of M/s. PHF Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. as under:
129. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.4,72,862/- which 63 facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
130. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.19,855/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
131. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
132. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
64
133. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.01(Asr)/2004 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
134. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y. 2000-01 in the case of M/s. PHF Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. as under:
135. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.7,72,633/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
136. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.66,237/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. 65 Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
136. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
137. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
138. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.02(Asr)/2004 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
139. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.4(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y. 1995-96 in the case of M/s. PHF Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. as under:
140. As regards ground No. 1 being the interest on KVPs amounting to Rs.11,850/- and lease rent amounting to Rs.1,64,686/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts 66 of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 of the Revenue are dismissed.
141. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.04(Asr)/2004 is dismissed.
142. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.5(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y. 1996-97 in the case of M/s. PHF Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. as under:
143. As regards ground No. 1 being the interest on KVPs amounting to Rs.34,765/- and lease rent amounting to Rs.1,58,460/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 & 1a of the Revenue are dismissed.
67
144. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.05(Asr)/2004 is dismissed.
145. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No38(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 2000-01 in the case of M/s. PHF Investment Pvt. Ltd. as under:
146. As regards grounds No. 1 to 4, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.19,889/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 4 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
147. As regards ground No.5 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.1,37,367/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the 68 assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
148. Ground No.6 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
149. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.38(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
150. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No39(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y.1999-2000 in the case of M/s. PHF Investment Pvt. Ltd. as under:
151. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.9,12,937/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically 69 applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
152. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.1,39,681/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
153. Ground No.7 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
154. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.39(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
155. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.6(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y. 2000-01 in the case of M/s. PHF Investment Pvt. Ltd. as under:
156. As regards ground No. 1 being the interest pm [re-matured deposits amounting to Rs.4,885/-, interest on Govt. securities amounting to 70 Rs.1,16,820/- and interest on FDR amounting to Rs.18,050/-, the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd; decided by us hereinabove in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98 in ground No. 1 & 1a therein, except the amount, where the appeal has been dismissed, being the identical facts to the present appeal of the Revenue and our order therein shall be identically applicable to the facts of the present appeal and accordingly ground No. 1 of the Revenue are dismissed.
157. Ground Nos.2 & 3 of the Revenue are general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.06(Asr)/2004 is dismissed.
158. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y.1996-97 in the case of M/s. Punjab Haryana Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
159. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.11,47,128/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present 71 grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
160. As regards ground No.6 with regard to charging of interest under section 12 & 12A, the same is consequential in nature.
161. Ground No.7 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
162. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3(Asr)/2004 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
163. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.40(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y.1999-2000 in the case of M/s. Punjab Haryana Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
164. As regards grounds No. 1 to 4, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.18,63,870/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us 72 hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 4 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
165. As regards ground No.5 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.2,84,578/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
166. Ground No.6 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
167. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.40(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
73
168. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.41(Asr)/2004 for the A.Y.2000-01 in the case of M/s. Punjab Haryana Auto Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
169. As regards grounds No. 1 to 4, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.16,32,315/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 4 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
170. As regards ground No.5 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.1,96,624/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be 74 identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
166. Ground No.6 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
171. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.41(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
172. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.6(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 in the case of M/s. DHP Leasing Pvt. Ltd. as under:
173. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.9,06,807/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 75
174. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.2,73,526/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
175. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
176. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
177. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.06(Asr)/2001 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
178. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.13(Asr)/2002 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 in the case of M/s. DHP Leasing Pvt. Ltd. as under:
179. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.20,14,021/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us 76 hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
180. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.7,24,321/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
181. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
182. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
183. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.13(Asr)/2002 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
77
184. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14(Asr)/2002 for the A.Y. 2000-01 in the case of M/s. DHP Leasing Pvt. Ltd. as under:
185. As regards grounds No. 1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.28,12,123/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
186. As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.4,24,891/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
78
187. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12A, which is consequential in nature.
188. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
189. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.14(Asr)/2002 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
190. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.13(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1996-97 in the case of M/s. Syal Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
191. As regards grounds No.1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.4,79,098/-, Finance commission amounting to Rs.5,48,395/- and over due charges on HP cases amounting to Rs.2,99,941, which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997- 97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA 79 No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
192. Ground No.6 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12 & 12A, which is consequential in nature.
193. As regards ground No.7 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.2,52,000/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount. Accordingly, our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y. 1997-98 shall be identically applicable in the present ground and accordingly ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed.
194. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
195. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.13(Asr)/2001 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
196. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.01(Asr)/2003 for the A.Y. 1997-98 in the case of M/s. Syal Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. as under:
80
197. As regards grounds No.1 to 5, the facts in the present case are with regard to earning of hire purchase charges amounting to Rs.5,91,232/-, and Finance charges amounting to Rs.4,000/- which facts are identical to the facts in ground No.1 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Ltd; for the assessment year 1997-98 decided by us hereinabove except the difference in amount. Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
198. As regards ground No.6 with regard to overdue charges earned at Rs. 3,00,733/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Since the facts in the present case except the amount are identical to facts in ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), our order in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed. 81
199. Ground No.7 is with regard to the charging of interest u/s 12 & 12A, which is consequential in nature.
200. Ground No.8 is general in nature, therefore, does not require any adjudication.
201. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.01(Asr)/2003 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
202. In the result, Interest Tax Appeal Nos. 05(Asr)/2001, 15(Asr)/2001, 03(Asr)/2001, 16(Asr)/2001, 14(Asr)/2001, 11 & 12(Asr)/2003, 04 & 02(Asr)/2001, 6(Asr)/2003, 30(Asr)/2003, 31(Asr)/2003, 32(Asr)/2003, 35(Asr)/2003, 36 & 37(Asr)/2003, 1,2 & 4(Asr)/2004, 38 & 39(Asr)/2003 , 3(Asr)/2004, 40 & 41(Asr)/2003, 6 & 13, 14(Asr)/2001 & 2002 and 13 & 1(Asr)/2001 & 2003) filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue in Interest Tax Appeal Nos. 11(Asr)/2001, 18(Asr)/2001, 09(Asr)/2001, 19(Asr)/2001, 17(Asr)/2001, 10(Asr)2001, 5(Asr)/2004, 6(Asr)/2004 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
(H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 28th June, 2013
/SKR/
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Assessees
2. The
3. The CIT(A),Jalandhar.
4. The CIT, Jalandhar.
5. The SR DR, ITAT, Amritsar.
True copy
By order
82
(Assistant Registrar)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Amritsar Bench: Amritsar.