This Illegal Revision Petition addressed whether the AITA allowed full interest deduction on NABARD borrowals. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order disallowing 7% disallowance as no diversion was indicated, dismissing the revision against the year 1993-94 due to low stakes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933
ST.Rev..No. 302 of 2005() ------------------------AITA.38/1998 of AGRL.I.T.ADL.BENCH,ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE.
--------------------------------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.
BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE.
THE HIGH LAND PRODUCE CO.LTD., P.B.NO.1685, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-15. ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 SMT.PRIYA MAHESH FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1
THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 1993-94 DT.19.1.96. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT.10.10.02.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
S.T. Rev. No.302 of 2005
.................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The question raised in the revision filed by the Revenue is whether the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing deduction of full amount of interest paid on funds borrowed for agricultural purposes from NABARD. We have heard Government Pleader for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondent.
2
do not find anything to indicate that part of the loan is diverted for nonagricultural purpose. So much so, the Tribunal rightly cancelled the 7% disallowance. Further, the appeal relates to the assessment year 1993-94 and we do not think there is any scope for further enquiry in the matter, particularly when the amount involved is very low. However, we make it clear that the order followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/S.RAJAGIRI RUBBER AND PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. probably should not be applied in subsequent years because that company is fully engaged in agricultural operations, whereas respondent-assessee is engaged in cultivation of tea as well which partly comes under Central Income Tax for assessment. Revision is dismissed with the above observation.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge
pms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing full deduction of interest paid on funds borrowed from NABARD for agricultural purposes.
Whether the Annuity/Appellate Tribunal's order allowing full deduction of interest should be applied in subsequent years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/S.RAJAGIRI RUBBER AND PRODUCE COMPANY LTD.Referred¶24
REVENUE
THE HIGH LAND PRODUCE CO.LTD.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
P.S.GOPINATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
