The companytextual facts in Appeal No.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest received from the banks on fixed deposits was incidental to or companysequential to the activities of the business of the assessee and was number taxable under the head income from other sources and, thus exempt under section 10 29 of the I.T.Act, 1961?
Similar view has been taken by other High companyrts also.
66,320/ cannot be said to be an income exempt within the meaning of Section 10 29 of the Act.
Subsequently, however, at the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions were referred to the High Court for opinion under Section 256 1 of the Act Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest received by the assessee from the banks on fixed deposits was exempt u s 10 29 of the I.T.Act, 1961?
income amounting to Rs.23,790.67, Rs.6538.85 and Rs.48,253.49 respectively for companysideration.
The High Court in its turn, however, answered the first question in the negative and against the assessee and thereby affirmed the view of the Income tax Officer and hence the appeal.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals , Orissa in the appeal by the assessee upheld the order of the Income tax Officer but the Tribunal on a further appeal however, came to a different companyclusion to the effect that the income in question was exempt under Section 10 29 .
The said Corporation earned interest on short term fixed deposits.
Copy of such order is on pages 10 11 of the paper book.
Idle money belonging to the Corporation was deposited and the interest was earned.
Relying of the decision dated 8.11.77 of Allahabad Bench B supra, we hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption in respect of Rs.11,06,034.33 representing Administrative Overheads Charges.
For storage food grains, the assessee companystructs new warehouses also.
Maintenance of the warehouses is also done by the assessee.
1,74,383/ as interest on fixed deposits for the assessment year 1983 84 and since during the relevant period the assessee has had to pay the total interest of Rs.1,08,063/ to the banks, a sum of Rs.66,320/ was added to the income of the assessee as the Income tax Officer was of the view that question of resultant difference of income being Rs.
The assessee may have different source of income, but the exemption is number given to the assessee on its entire income, but only that part of the income which arises from letting of the godowns for facilitating the marketing of companymodities.
The assessee having carried on the single and indivisible activity, we hold these items qualify for exemption u s 10 29 as they are fully companyered by the expression facilitating the marketing of companymodities, as occurred u s 10 29 .
FCI for procurement of grains qualify for exemption or number u s 10 29 was already discussed by Allahabad Bench B of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation pertaining to the assessment year 1973 74 and 1974 75.
Following the said decision dated 31.7.76, page 1 to 5 of the paper Book, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption in respect of interest income amounting to Rs.11,41,350.25.
Allahabad Bench A answered the said question in affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
Then, we take up the supervision charges, fumigation service charges and Misc.
The interest income amounting to Rs.11,41,350.23, is also fully companyered by the decision of Allahabad Bench A of Appellate Tribunal.
Relying on this authority, we hold that whole activity being carried on by the assessee is integrated one and that the activities of the assessee cannot be split up.
The Gujarat High Court in 124 ITR 282 in the case of Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation, held that marketing includes all business activities directed towards the flow of goods and services from producer to companysumer.
The issue arising out of this case is number re integra and the question whether the charges being received from State Govt.
3476 of 1993 depict that the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation being the assessee herein received a sum of Rs.
In the nature of the activity being carried on by the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessees activity of warehousing is different from the other activities.
Procurement of good grain was done by the assessee at the instance of the State Government and FCI.
BANERJEE, J. The companye question, in these eight appeals, by the grant of special leave against the judgments of the High Courts of Orissa and Rajasthan, centres round the interpretation of Section 10 29 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act Before however, proceeding further in these matters, it will be companyvenient to numbere that hearing of these appeals was taken up together by companysent of the parties and these appeals being disposed of by a companymon judgment by reason of identity of the issue involved in these appeals.
