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>Court rules interest from provident fund investment & rental income not deductible under Income-tax Act. Delay in appeal condoned.</h1> <h3>BIHAR RAJYA SAHKARI BHOOMI VIKAS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX</h3> The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that interest earned from the investment of employees' provident fund and rental income from house property do not ... Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) – Interest Income and Rental Income – AO, Comm(A) and Tribunal has disallowed the claim observing that the interest earned on the investment of the provident fund money was not eligible for exemption under section 80P(2) (a) (i) of the Income-tax Act, because the said income has not been earned from regular business of banking. It also observed that the interest earned on investment of the provident fund amount did not form part of either the stock-in-trade or the circulating capital. For parity of reasons the Tribunal disallowed the deduction of the rental income also - Held that interest derived from investment of the provident fund amount and the rental income do not qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(a) (i) of the Act. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the interest derived from the investment of the employees' provident fund qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.2. Whether the rental income from house property qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interest Derived from Investment of Employees' Provident Fund:- The appellant-assessee, a cooperative bank, claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest earned from the investment of employees' provident fund. The Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Income-tax Tribunal denied this deduction, stating that the interest was not earned from the regular banking business.- The Tribunal observed that the interest did not form part of the stock-in-trade or circulating capital of the bank.- The appellant argued that the interest should be considered attributable to the banking business, citing the Supreme Court decision in Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 114, which emphasized that investing money is a normal part of banking business.- The Revenue countered with the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in M. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 327, which stated that interest from provident fund investments is not part of banking business income.- The court concluded that provident fund money belongs to employees and is not the bank's stock-in-trade or circulating capital. Therefore, interest earned from such investments is not derived from or attributable to the banking business.2. Rental Income from House Property:- The assessee also claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for rental income from house property.- The Tribunal disallowed this deduction, reasoning that rental income is not derived from the banking business.- The appellant cited the Madras High Court decision in CIT v. V. S. T. Motors P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 155, where rental income was considered business income.- The court distinguished this case, noting that the issue was whether rental income is business income or income from house property, not whether it qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i).- The court agreed with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's reasoning in M. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., concluding that rental income is neither attributable to nor derived from the banking business.3. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 141 of 2002 was filed late, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted, citing the counsel's eye surgery as the cause of delay.- The court found the explanation satisfactory and condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits.Conclusion:- The court dismissed the appeals, holding that neither the interest derived from the investment of the provident fund nor the rental income qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
