Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jai Prakash Hydro Power Ventures Limited

Himachal Pradesh HC15 May 2017ITA/3/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh heard three income tax appeals. Relying on a decision by the Apex Court, the court held that interest on late contractual payments is part of the contract business receipts and not 'income from other sources'. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

All appeals stand dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Jai Prakash Hydro Power… — Income Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

ITA Nos.1 of 2014, 4015 of 2013 & 3 of 2014.

¶3

Date of decision: 15.05.2017.

¶4

1. ITA No.1 of 2014.

¶5

Commissioner of Income Tax .…Appellant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jai Prakash Hydro Power Ventures Ltd. …..Respondent.

¶8

2. ITA No.4015 of 2013. Commissioner of Income Tax .…Appellant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

Jai Prakash Hydro Power Ventures Ltd. …..Respondent. 3. ITA No.3 of 2014. Commissioner of Income Tax .…Appellant.

¶11

Versus

¶12

Jai Prakash Hydro Power Venture Ltd. …..Respondent.

¶13

Coram

¶14

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶15

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶16

For the Appellant(s) :	Mr.Vinay Kuthiala, with Ms.Vandan Advocate.	Sr. Advocate a Kuthiala,
For the Respondent(s):	Mr.Vishal Mohan Keprate, Advocates.	& Mr.Sushant

¶17

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶18

¶19

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice, (Oral)

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records made available, we find the substantial question of law on which the appeal(s) came to be admitted to have been directly answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Govinda Choudhury and Sons, ITR 1993(Volume 203)881 in the following terms:-

¶21

“ This brings us to a consideration of the second question. The sum of Rs. 2,77,692 was received by the assessee as interest on the amounts which were determined to be payable by the assessee in respect of certain contracts executed by the assessee and in regard to the payments under which there was a dispute between the two parties. The assessee is a contractor. His business is to enter into contracts. In the course of the execution of these contracts, he has also to face disputes with the State Government and he has also to reckon with delays in payment of amounts that are due to him. If the amounts are not paid at the proper time and interest is awarded or paid for such delay, such interest is only an accretion to the assessee's receipts from the contracts. It is obviously attributable and incidental to the business carried on by him. It would not be correct, as the Tribunal has held, to say that this interest is totally de hors the contract business carried on by the assessee. It is well-settled that interest can be assessed under the head "Income from other sources" only if it cannot be brought within one or the other of the specific heads of charge. We find it difficult to comprehend how the interest receipts by the assessee can be treated as receipts which flow to him de hors the business which is carried on by him. In our view, the interest payable to him certainly partakes of the same character as the receipts for

¶22

¶23

the payment of which he was otherwise entitled under the contract and which payment has been delayed as a result of certain disputes between the parties. It cannot be separated from the other amounts granted to the assessee under the awards and treated as "income from other sources". The second question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.”

¶24

In the instant case, unlike that of the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, ITR 2003 (Volume 262) 278 , the interest on the late payments was received by the assessee, from the Electricity Board, in relation to the supply of electricity to the Board and in terms of the agreement. As such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Govinda Choudhury’s case (supra), such interest so received partakes the character as receipt for the payment for which the assessee was otherwise entitled to under the contract and thus entitled for statutory deduction.

¶25