https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71624 The ITAT Pune affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee, classified as an 'Equipment Leasing Company' by the RBI, was a Leasing Company and not liable to Interest-tax. The ITAT Pune emphasized the assessee's primary engagement in leasing activities over providing finances, with leasing constituting over 72% of total income. It rejected the Revenue's argument that leasing equates to financing, citing distinctions between hire purchase and leasing transactions. The ITAT Pune also noted the assessee's ownership retention of equipment, distinguishing it from a loan transaction. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the assessee's classification as a Leasing Company. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:30:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71624 The ITAT Pune affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee, classified as an 'Equipment Leasing Company' by the RBI, was a Leasing Company and not liable to Interest-tax. The ITAT Pune emphasized the assessee's primary engagement in leasing activities over providing finances, with leasing constituting over 72% of total income. It rejected the Revenue's argument that leasing equates to financing, citing distinctions between hire purchase and leasing transactions. The ITAT Pune also noted the assessee's ownership retention of equipment, distinguishing it from a loan transaction. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the assessee's classification as a Leasing Company. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71624