TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>State industrial undertaking's interest income not its own, affirms. Funds for Delhi Administration.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus DELHISTATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT</h3> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the interest earned by a State industrial undertaking from investing surplus funds did not constitute ... Income - Assessee erroneously utilized the funds and interest earned thereon credit in his profit and loss account but on the direction of CAG it reversed the entries and submitted in the account of Delhi Administration - Held that amount not included in the assessee income Issues:Interpretation of income earned by investing surplus funds in banks belonging to a State industrial undertaking for development of a complex under a scheme formulated by the Delhi Administration.Analysis:The case involved a State industrial undertaking responsible for developing a complex under a scheme by the Delhi Administration. A Narela revolving fund was created to manage financial resources, with separate accounts for transactions related to the fund. The undertaking developed plots, generated surplus funds, and earned interest by investing in banks. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) audited the accounts, advising that the funds and interest did not belong to the undertaking. The undertaking reversed the entries and deposited the amounts with the Delhi Administration, claiming no income earned through interest.The Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) disagreed, asserting that the interest constituted the undertaking's income. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, emphasizing that the scheme and funds belonged to the Delhi Administration, not the undertaking. The Tribunal noted that the undertaking rectified the error upon objection by the CAG, indicating no income earned through interest. The Tribunal concluded that the funds and interest did not belong to the undertaking, as it was solely a development agency.The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the funds and interest did not pertain to the undertaking, as they were owned by the Delhi Administration. The Court found no fault in the Tribunal's reasoning, as the undertaking had no income and rectified the credits based on the CAG's advice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
