THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II v. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR

ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No(s). 14600/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/05/2014 in MAT No. 1679/2013 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) PRASENJIT MAZUMDER Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 11/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai,Adv.(NP) For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for the petitioner. Further two weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

V ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No(s). 14600/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/05/2014 in MAT No. 1679/2013 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) PRASENJIT MAZUMDER Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 11/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE [IN CHAMBER] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai,Adv.(NP) For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for the petitioner. Further two weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by OmParkash SharmaDate: 2016.01.12 12:45:06ISTReason: DSC of Sh. OPSharma is being used by Sh.Deepak Mansukhani

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5212-5220 OF 2007 M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA …APPELLANT THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA …RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3185 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3383 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3764 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3766 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13465 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.13359 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO.3380 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3763 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13464 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.13357 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO.4008 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4322 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4987 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4988 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4990 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4991 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4992 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4993 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4994 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4995 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4996 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4997 OF 2015 1

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4986 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5328 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3381 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3382 OF 2015 J U D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. Leave granted in special leave petition (civil) nos. 13359 of 2015 and 13357 of 2015. 2. There are 25 appeals that have been posted for hearing before us. They are concerned primarily with interest that is received by various banks after bills of exchange have been discounted by them and a party defaults and hence has to pay compensation by way of interest as payment is made after the date stipulated in the bill of exchange. The precise question that arises before us is whether such payment of compensation to the said banks is “interest” liable to tax under the Interest Tax Act, 1974. 3. The facts in all the cases are similar. The bank makes purchases of bills of exchange from its customers and charges 2

commission thereon for services rendered by it. The discounted bills so purchased are then presented to the parties concerned for realization. If on presentation the bill is realized within time, no charges are levied by the bank. In case the bills are not realized in time but the other party pays the value of the bill beyond the stipulated time, a certain amount in the form of interest is charged by the bank on a fixed percentage basis for every day of default. This amount is credited by the bank in its interest account. 4. On these broad facts there is a sharp cleavage of opinion between the High Courts. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Kerala High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Madras High Court and Rajasthan High Court have all decided that such amounts are not chargeable to tax as “chargeable interest” under the Interest Tax Act. On the other hand, the Karnataka High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court have differed from this view and have stated that such amount would be so chargeable. 3

5. The entire case hinges on the construction of Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 which defines “interest” as follows:- “ Section 2(7), Interest Tax Act, 1974 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, — ( 7 ) "interest" means interest on loans and advances made in India and includes— ( a ) commitment charges on unutilised portion of any credit sanctioned for being availed of in India; and ( b ) discount on promissory notes and bills of exchange drawn or made in India, but does not include— ( i ) interest referred to in sub-section (1B) of section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); ( ii ) discount on treasury bills;” 6. Under Section 4 of the said Act, there shall be charged on every scheduled bank for every assessment year a tax in respect of chargeable interest of the previous year at the rate of 7%. 7. The first important thing to notice is that the definition of interest contained in the Interest Tax Act, 1974 is a narrow one, and is exhaustive as it is a ‘means and includes’ definition. In P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology , 1995 Supp 4

(2) SCC 348 , this Court, when dealing with The Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, stated as follows:- “ A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word ‘means’ or the word ‘includes’. Sometimes the words ‘means and includes’ are used. The use of the word ‘means’ indicates that “definition is a hard-and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in definition”. (See : Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665 : 60 LJ QB 726] ; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [(1990) 3 SCC 682, 717 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 71] .) The word ‘includes’ when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the clause declares that they shall include. The words “means and includes”, on the other hand, indicate “an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions”. (See : Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps [1899 AC 99, 105-106 : (1895-9) All ER Rep Ext 1576] (Lord Watson); Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. [(1989) 1 SCC 164, 169 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 56]” [at para 19] 8. The precise question that arises before us is whether compensation that can be traced to Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be regarded as interest 5

on loans and advances. Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states as follows:- “ Section 32. Liability of maker of note and acceptor of bill. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the maker of a promissory note and the acceptor before maturity of a bill of exchange are bound to pay the amount thereof at maturity according to the apparent tenor of the note or acceptance respectively, and the acceptor of a bill of exchange at or after maturity is bound to pay the amount thereof to the holder on demand. In default of such payment as aforesaid, such maker or acceptor is bound to compensate any party to the note or bill for any loss or damage sustained by him and caused by such default.” 9. It will be seen that when default of payment takes place, the acceptor of the bill of exchange is bound to compensate any party to the bill for any loss or damage sustained by him and caused by such default. In most cases such loss or damage is a liquidated amount which can be calculated from the rate mentioned on the face of the bill of exchange. 10. The first thing that will be noticed is that the interest on which tax is payable under the Interest Tax Act is primarily on loans and advances made in India. By a deeming fiction, 6

discount on bills of exchange made in India is also included. It is clear, therefore, that discount on bills of exchange would obviously not come within the expression “loans and advances made in India”, and consequently any amount that becomes payable by way of compensation after a bill is discounted by the Bank would not be an amount which would be “on loans and advances made in India”. 11. Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue basically placed for our consideration the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court judgment and adopted that reasoning as his argument. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, learned counsel for the assessees, placed before us the reasoning of the High Courts in his favour and adopted the same as his argument. He also argued that a loan of money may result in a debt but every debt does not involve a loan. He further argued that the transaction of drawing, accepting, discounting or re-discounting of bills of exchange can be bifurcated into three separate categories, and that the drawer of a bill may discount the bill of exchange with the bank, which would not result into a relationship of debtor and creditor 7

with the bank. It thus becomes imperative to first find out what in fact the High Courts have held on this vexed question. 12. The Karnataka High Court in State Bank of Mysore v. Commissioner of I.T., Karnataka-I, Bangalore , (1989) 175 ITR 607, has reasoned thus: “ Sri Sarangan, learned counsel for assessee relying on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.I.T. v. State Bank of Indore (69 CTR (MP) 147) contended that though this sum of money may be interest in its wider sense including both interest proper and interest by way of damages, still the provisions of Income Tax Act are not attracted since what can be brought within the purview of the Act is only interest on loans and advances. The amount charged by the assessee on delayed payment of bills cannot be held to interest on loans and advances and it was not exigible to tax under the Interest Tax Act. He also relied upon Sec. 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and contended that the said provision contemplates only compensation and not the interest at all. When the Bank discounts a bill what happens is the drawee gets a credit from the Bank to the extent of the amount covered by the Bill. This position has been explained in LAW OF BANKING By Paget, 9th Edition at page 415 thus: “ The discount of a bill is the purchase of it with, normally, a right of recourse and for a sum less than its face value. The discounter is free to deal with the Instrument as he pleases. Discount is a negotiation. Other things being equal there is no practical or legal distinction between the ordinary negotiation of a bill and its being discounted except in the sum 8

paid on it. Discounting is a means of lending as is pledge.” It is stated in Byles on BILL OF EXCHANGE (24th Edition) at page 282 as follows: “ A banker clearly gives value for a bill when he discounts it, the transaction consisting of the purchase of the bill at a discount, i.e. allowing the interest for the time the bill has to run, subject in the event of dishonour to a right of recovery from the person for whom it is discounted.” The practice of the Bank itself, at the time of discounting is as disclosed in the letter used to be sent along with the intimation of discount which showed that in case of delayed payment an overdue interest at a particular rate had to be collected if not paid on presentation. These facts are sufficient to hold that the amount in question is interest under Sec. 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. It is settled law that interest is damages or compensation for delayed payment of money due. Therefore the expression ‘compensation’ in Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will include interest paid by way of damages or compensation for delayed payments. We have already held that Discounting of Bills is a form of advance or loan, and hence compensation paid on delayed payment of money due thereon is interest on loans and advances . Discount on bill is a form of advance or loan granted to its customer by a Bank and if that be the true position as indicated by Paget any amount collected by the Bank for delayed payment of that amount cannot be anything but interest, whatever may be the nomenclature, and is chargeable interest for the purpose of Interest Tax Act.” [at pages 610 – 611] 9

13. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. State Bank of Patiala , (2008) 300 ITR 395 (P&H) has merely reiterated the aforesaid view. 14. On the other hand, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. State Bank of Indore , (1988) 172 ITR 24 has reasoned thus:- “ Now the right to charge the amount for delay in payment of bills accrued to the assessee by virtue of the provisions of section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into by the assessee with its constituents in pursuance of which bills were purchased by the assessee. On account of delayed payment of bills purchased by the assessee, the assessee became entitled to liquidated damages by way of compensation, as stipulated in the agreement. The right to charge that amount by the assessee did not, therefore, arise on account of any delay in repayment of any loan or advance made by the assessee. That right accrued on account of default in the payment of the bills . It may be that the amount payable by way of compensation for detention of a sum of money due, can be said to be covered by the expression “interest” in its widest sense, including both interest proper and interest by way of damages. But the provisions of the Interest-tax Act are attracted only in the case of interest on loans and advances. The amount charged by the assessee for delayed payment of bills cannot be held to be “interest on loans and advances”. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the amounts in question charged by the assessee for delayed 10

payment of bills were in the nature of interest on advances and exigible to tax under the Interest-tax Act.” [ at page 28] The Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. State Bank of Travancore, [1997] 228 ITR 40 (Ker), in arriving at the same conclusion as the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has, however, adopted a different line of reasoning in the following terms:- “ These overdue bills are presented to the bank by the makers for the purpose of their recovery. As far as the makers are concerned, there may be justified or required circumstances for them to approach the bank. The bank has ready facilities for recovery, more statutory powers of stringent character and, therefore, the practice gets established that the makers hand over the overdue bills to the bank for recovery. It is thereafter that the bank sets in motion. In other words, what is undertaken by the bank is the recovery of the amount covered by the bill and in regard to which, by virtue of Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a statutory liability is created with regard to the prompt payment. The details that are available in the context would show that the origin of the amount which is the subject-matter of an overdue bill gets snapped. In other words, the moment the maker presents the overdue bill to the bank for recovery, it becomes a document negotiable in itself on its own strength empowering the bank to effect recovery and creating the liabilities of the parties as regards prompt payment thereof . In such a situation, ignoring the intermittent acrobatics as to whether 11

the amount can be understood as interest or could continue to have the character of its description as compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, would be wholly unnecessary, at least for the purpose of consideration as to whether the amount can assume the character of "chargeable interest". It is elementary in the context that taxation liability has to be understood and established and unless this is apparent from the material on record, the imposition of tax does not get justified. In other words, unless the amount which is sought to be chargeable as the chargeable interest has any necessary relationship with loans and advances, such an attempt to understand the amount alone would not satisfy the requirement of justification.” 15. Likewise, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Hyderabad, [2014] 367 ITR 128 (AP) has also dissented from the Karnataka High Court’s view. In addition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reasoned thus: “ It is not uncommon that banks purchase Bills of Exchange from their customers and make payments, on being satisfied that they are in order. Whenever the purchase of Bills of Exchange takes place, the purported transaction comes to be governed by Section 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The basic transaction of borrowing and lending is required to be between the persons described as "maker" and "acceptor" under Section 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The person who purchased the Bills of Exchange becomes the 12

"bearer" thereof. Section 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, defines the liability of the concerned persons to discharge their respective obligations. However, it is difficult to imagine that the purchaser of the Bills of Exchange can be treated as a person who has advanced the loans, to the original borrower. For all practical purposes a different transaction altogether, comes into existence .” The Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. , [2008] 296 ITR 601 (Mad ) has simply followed the Kerala High Court’s view, and the Rajasthan High Court in a judgment dated 12.11.2014, which is the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No.4988 of 2015, has reasoned thus:- “ The assessee-bank got right to charge the amount for the delay in payment of bills accrued to the assessee by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, that its constituents (borrowers), the bills were purchased by the assessee and on account of the delayed payment of bills, the assessee became entitled to liquidated damages by way of compensation from the borrower. The right to charge that amount by the assessee did not, therefore, arise on account of any delay in re-payment of any loan or advances made by the assessee. It may be that the amount payable by way of compensation for detention of a sum of money due, can be said to be covered by the expression “interest” in its widest sense including interest proper and interest by way of damages but 13

the provision of the Interest Tax Act can be said to be attracted only in case of interest received on loans and advances. However, the transaction ends on the due date occurs and the relationship of borrower lender ends. In our view, the scope and definition of the term “interest” cannot be interpreted to bring within its fold any income that is booked by an assessee under the head interest. The character of an overdue bill is not synonymous with the loans and advances and, therefore, it will not fall within the ambit and scope of interest u/s 2 (7) of the Interest Tax Act. The Parliament in its own wisdom has not included any amount that is recovered in the form of interest, penalty or otherwise under the definition of Interest and had it been so, such nature of amount as contended by the revenue could have been brought within the ambit and scope of interest. We are further of the view that on the due date/cutoff date whatever amount has been recovered by the assessee bank, will certainly fall in the nature of interest, but once the due date/cutoff date is over, any amount received after that date by the bank, would be in the nature of compensation/penalty/liquidated damages and will not be “interest”. It is well settled proposition of law that the way in which entries are made by an assessee in its books of account or the nomenclature given to a transaction by the parties is not determinative of the due character/nature of that transaction. The definition as we have pointed out of ''interest'', shall not cover the amount received by the assessee after the due date. We have gone through the judgments rendered by various High Courts as quoted above and are not in conformity with the view of Karnataka and Punjab and Haryana High Court and we concur with the view of Madhya Pradesh & Kerala High Court. 14

Recently the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court also had an occasion to consider the same issue in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad: (2014) 367 ITR 128 and after considering the same issue, as is being examined by this Court and have come to the conclusion that the amount received after due date is not in the nature of interest. Accordingly, in our view, the amount received as “overdue interest” in inland/foreign demand bills is not liable to be taxed as interest under the Interest Tax Act and we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” We are of the view that the Karnataka High Court’s reasoning is fallacious for the simple reason that Section 2(7) itself makes a distinction between loans and advances made in India and discount on bills of exchange drawn or made in India. It is obvious that if discounted bills of exchange were also to be treated as loans and advances made in India there would be no need to extend the definition of “interest” to include discount on bills of exchange. Indeed, this matter is no longer res integra . In CIT v. Sahara India Savings & Investment Corpn. Ltd. , (2009) 17 SCC 43, this Court while dealing with the definition contained in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, held:- 15

“ Section 2(5) defines “chargeable interest” to mean total amount of interest referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in Section 6. In other words, the “scope of chargeable interest” is defined under Section 5 whereas “computation of chargeable interest” is under Section 6. Section 2(7) is the heart of the matter as far as the present case is concerned. In accounting sense, there is a conceptual difference between loans and advances on the one hand and investments on the other hand. Section 2(7) defines the word “interest” to mean interest on “loans and advances including commitment charges, discount on promissory notes and bills of exchange but not to include interest referred to under Section 42(1-B) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 as well as discount on treasury bills”. Section 2(7), therefore, defines what is interest in the first part and that first part confines interest only to loans and advances, including commitment charges, discount on promissory notes and bills of exchange. Pausing here, it is clear that the interest tax is meant to be levied only on interest accruing on loans and advances but the legislature, in its wisdom, has extended the meaning of the word “interest” to two other items, namely, commitment charges and discount on promissory notes and bills of exchange. In normal accounting sense, “loans and advances”, as a concept, is different from commitment charges and discounts and keeping in mind the difference between the three, the legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically included in the definition under Section 2(7) commitment charges as well as discounts . The fact remains that interest on loans and advances will not cover under Section 2(7) interest on bonds and debentures bought by an assessee as and by way of “investment”. Even the exclusionary part of Section 16

2(7) excludes only discount on treasury bills as well as interest under Section 42(1-B) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.” [at paras 5 – 7] 16. The Karnataka High Court’s view is directly contrary to the view of this Court, and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. “Loans and advances” has been held to be different from “discounts” and the legislature has kept in mind the difference between the two. It is clear therefore that the right to charge for overdue interest by the assessee banks did not arise on account of any delay in repayment of any loan or advance made by the said banks. That right arose on account of default in the payment of amounts due under a discounted bill of exchange. It is well settled that a subject can be brought to tax only by a clear statutory provision in that behalf. Interest is chargeable to tax under the Interest Tax Act only if it arises directly from a loan or advance. This is clear from the use of the word “on” in Section 2(7) of the Act. Interest payable “on” a discounted bill of exchange cannot therefore be equated with interest payable “on” a loan or advance. This being the case, it is clear that the reasoning contained in the High Courts which 17

differ from the Karnataka view is obviously correct but for the reasons given by us. 17. It will be interesting to notice at this stage that the expression “interest” is also defined under the Income Tax Act. Section 2(28A) defines interest as follows:- “ 2. Definitions .--- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. [(28A) “interest” means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilized.]” 18. It will be noticed that this definition is much wider than that contained in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. The expression “payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed” is an expression of considerable width. It will be noticed that the aforesaid language of the definition section contained in the Income Tax Act is broader than that contained in the Interest Tax Act in three respects. Firstly, interest can be payable in any manner whatsoever. Secondly, the expression “in respect of” includes interest arising even indirectly out of a 18

money transaction, unlike the word “on” contained in Section 2(7) which, we have already seen, connotes a direct arising of payment of interest out of a loan or advance. And thirdly, “any moneys borrowed” must be contrasted with “loan or advances”. The former expression would certainly bring within its ken moneys borrowed by means other than by way of loans or advances. We therefore conclude that the Interest Tax Act, unlike the Income Tax Act, has focused only on a very narrow taxable event which does not include within its ken interest payable on default in payment of amounts due under a discounted bill of exchange. 19. In fact, when we come to the second point agitated in some of the appeals by revenue namely as to whether guarantee fees paid to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation could be included in the definition of interest in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974, it will be clear that such definition does not include any service fee or other charges in respect of monies borrowed or debt incurred, again unlike the definition of ‘interest’ under the Income Tax Act. We find that the Rajasthan High Court in the impugned 19

judgment in Civil Appeal No.4988 of 2015 is correct when it observed:- “ On conjoint reading of the definition of interest, which has been quoted herein above and under the Interest Tax Act in para 4 (supra), it is noticed that the Interest Tax Act, does not include the term “any service fee or other charges in respect of money charge or debt incurred.” under its ambit and putting to test the principle of harmonious interpretation, it is evident that the parliament in its wisdom has chosen not to add the aforesaid terminology under the Interest Tax Act, and what has not been mentioned neither be added nor is 22 required to be read in between the lines. We have already observed about principles of interpretation in para 8.5 and 8.6 (supra) and mere crediting the said amount as interest will certainly not entitle the revenue to treat the same as interest. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills and Godhra Electricity (supra) have clearly expressed that mere crediting the amount under a head is not determinative of the real nature and real intent and purpose of the transaction is required to be seen. Therefore, we hold that the amount recovered by the assessee from the constituents (borrower) cannot be taxed as interest in the hands of the assessee. On perusal of definition, it is distinctively clear that such charges recovered by the bank cannot be equated to the term interest under the Act. Though the receipt of Guarantee Fees received from constituents (borrowers) is not linked to what is paid to DICGC as insurance cover on behalf of depositors, the issue is not relevant for the reason stated by us herein above.” 20

20. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeals of revenue and allow the appeals of the assessees and set aside the judgments in favour of revenue. …………………… J. (A.K. Sikri) ……………………J. New Delhi; (R.F. Nariman) November 18, 2015 21

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA (For judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 5212-5220/2007 M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 3185/2015 C.A. No. 3383/2015 C.A. No. 3764/2015 C.A. No. 3766/2015 C.A. No. 13465/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 13359/2015) C.A. No. 3380/2015 C.A. No. 3763/2015 C.A. No. 13464/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 13357/2015) C.A. No. 4008/2015 C.A. No. 4322/2015 C.A. No. 4987/2015 C.A. No. 4988/2015 C.A. No. 4990/2015 C.A. No. 4991/2015 C.A. No. 4992/2015 22

C.A. No. 4993/2015 C.A. No. 4994/2015 C.A. No. 4995/2015 C.A. No. 4996/2015 C.A. No. 4997/2015 C.A. No. 4986/2015 C.A. No. 5328/2015 C.A. No. 3381/2015 C.A. No. 3382/2015 Date : 18/11/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Tarun Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and His Lordship. Leave granted in SLP (C)Nos. 13359 of 2015 and 13357 of 2015. The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the judgments in favour of Revenue are set aside in terms of the signed reportable judgment. In view thereof, applications pending, if any, stand disposed of. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Rajinder Kaur) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] 23

P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology , 1995 Supp (2) SCC 348 , this Court, when dealing with The Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, stated as follows:- “ A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word ‘means’ or the word ‘includes’. Sometimes the words ‘means and includes’ are used. The use of the word ‘means’ indicates that “definition is a hard-and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in definition”. (See : Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665 : 60 LJ QB 726] ; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [(1990) 3 SCC 682, 717 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 71] .) The word ‘includes’ when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the clause declares that they shall include. The words “means and includes”, on the other hand, indicate “an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions”. (See : Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps [1899 AC 99, 105-106 : (1895-9) All ER Rep Ext 1576] (Lord Watson); Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. [(1989) 1 SCC 164, 169 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 56]” [at para 19] 8. The precise question that arises before us is whether compensation that can be traced to Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be regarded as interest 5

Î REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5212-5220 OF 2007 M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA ...APPELLANT THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3185 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3383 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3764 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3766 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13465 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.13359 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO.3380 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3763 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13464 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.13357 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO.4008 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4322 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4987 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4988 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4990 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4991 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4992 OF 2015Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL NO.4993 OF 2015Digitally signed byASHWANI KUMARDate: 2015.11.18 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4994 OF 201515:13:43 ISTReason: CIVIL APPEAL NO.4995 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4996 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4997 OF 2015 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4986 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5328 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3381 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL NO.3382 OF 2015 J U D G M E N TR.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted in special leave petition (civil) nos. 13359of 2015 and 13357 of 2015.2. There are 25 appeals that have been posted for hearingbefore us. They are concerned primarily with interest that isreceived by various banks after bills of exchange have been

discounted by them and a party defaults and hence has to paycompensation by way of interest as payment is made after thedate stipulated in the bill of exchange. The precise question thatarises before us is whether such payment of compensation tothe said banks is "interest" liable to tax under the Interest TaxAct, 1974.3. The facts in all the cases are similar. The bank makespurchases of bills of exchange from its customers and charges 2commission thereon for services rendered by it. The discountedbills so purchased are then presented to the parties concernedfor realization. If on presentation the bill is realized within time,no charges are levied by the bank. In case the bills are notrealized in time but the other party pays the value of the billbeyond the stipulated time, a certain amount in the form ofinterest is charged by the bank on a fixed percentage basis forevery day of default. This amount is credited by the bank in itsinterest account.4. On these broad facts there is a sharp cleavage of opinionbetween the High Courts. The Madhya Pradesh High Court,Kerala High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Madras HighCourt and Rajasthan High Court have all decided that suchamounts are not chargeable to tax as "chargeable interest"under the Interest Tax Act. On the other hand, the KarnatakaHigh Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court havediffered from this view and have stated that such amount wouldbe so chargeable. 35. The entire case hinges on the construction of Section 2(7)of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 which defines "interest" as follows:- "Section 2(7), Interest Tax Act, 1974 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, --

(7) "interest" means interest on loans and advances made in India and includes-- (a) commitment charges on unutilised portion of any credit sanctioned for being availed of in India; and (b) discount on promissory notes and bills of exchange drawn or made in India, but does not include-- (i) interest referred to in sub-section (1B) of section 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); (ii) discount on treasury bills;"6. Under Section 4 of the said Act, there shall be charged onevery scheduled bank for every assessment year a tax inrespect of chargeable interest of the previous year at the rate of7%.7. The first important thing to notice is that the definition ofinterest contained in the Interest Tax Act, 1974 is a narrow one,and is exhaustive as it is a `means and includes' definition. InP. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, 1995 Supp 4(2) SCC 348, this Court, when dealing with The Tamil NaduPrivate Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, stated as follows:- "A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word `means' or the word `includes'. Sometimes the words `means and includes' are used. The use of the word `means' indicates that "definition is a hard-and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in definition". (See : Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665 : 60 LJ QB 726] ; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court [(1990) 3 SCC 682, 717 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 71] .) The word `includes' when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the clause declares that they shall include. The words "means and includes", on the other hand, indicate "an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions". (See : Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps [1899 AC 99, 105-106 : (1895-9) All ER Rep Ext 1576] (Lord Watson); Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. [(1989) 1 SCC 164, 169 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 56]" [at para 19]8. The precise question that arises before us is whethercompensation that can be traced to Section 32 of theNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be regarded as interest

5on loans and advances. Section 32 of the NegotiableInstruments Act states as follows:- "Section 32. Liability of maker of note and acceptor of bill. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the maker of a promissory note and the acceptor before maturity of a bill of exchange are bound to pay the amount thereof at maturity according to the apparent tenor of the note or acceptance respectively, and the acceptor of a bill of exchange at or after maturity is bound to pay the amount thereof to the holder on demand. In default of such payment as aforesaid, such maker or acceptor is bound to compensate any party to the note or bill for any loss or damage sustained by him and caused by such default."9. It will be seen that when default of payment takes place,the acceptor of the bill of exchange is bound to compensateany party to the bill for any loss or damage sustained by himand caused by such default. In most cases such loss ordamage is a liquidated amount which can be calculated fromthe rate mentioned on the face of the bill of exchange.10. The first thing that will be noticed is that the interest onwhich tax is payable under the Interest Tax Act is primarily onloans and advances made in India. By a deeming fiction, 6discount on bills of exchange made in India is also included. Itis clear, therefore, that discount on bills of exchange wouldobviously not come within the expression "loans and advancesmade in India", and consequently any amount that becomespayable by way of compensation after a bill is discounted by theBank would not be an amount which would be "on loans andadvances made in India".11. Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned senior advocate appearing onbehalf of the revenue basically placed for our consideration thereasoning of the Karnataka High Court judgment and adoptedthat reasoning as his argument. On the other hand, Shri

Sanjay Jhanwar, learned counsel for the assessees, placedbefore us the reasoning of the High Courts in his favour andadopted the same as his argument. He also argued that a loanof money may result in a debt but every debt does not involve aloan. He further argued that the transaction of drawing,accepting, discounting or re-discounting of bills of exchangecan be bifurcated into three separate categories, and that thedrawer of a bill may discount the bill of exchange with the bank,which would not result into a relationship of debtor and creditor 7with the bank. It thus becomes imperative to first find out whatin fact the High Courts have held on this vexed question.12. The Karnataka High Court in State Bank of Mysore v.Commissioner of I.T., Karnataka-I, Bangalore, (1989) 175ITR 607, has reasoned thus: "Sri Sarangan, learned counsel for assessee relying on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.I.T. v.State Bank of Indore (69 CTR (MP) 147) contended that though this sum of money may be interest in its wider sense including both interest proper and interest by way of damages, still the provisions of Income Tax Act are not attracted since what can be brought within the purview of the Act is only interest on loans and advances. The amount charged by the assessee on delayed payment of bills cannot be held to interest on loans and advances and it was not exigible to tax under the Interest Tax Act. He also relied upon Sec. 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and contended that the said provision contemplates only compensation and not the interest at all. When the Bank discounts a bill what happens is the drawee gets a credit from the Bank to the extent of the amount covered by the Bill. This position has been explained in LAW OF BANKING By Paget, 9th Edition at page 415 thus: "The discount of a bill is the purchase of it with, normally, a right of recourse and for a sum less than its face value. The discounter is free to deal with the Instrument as he pleases. Discount is a negotiation. Other things being equal there is no practical or legal distinction between the ordinary negotiation of a bill and its being discounted except in the sum 8paid on it. Discounting is a means of lending as ispledge."It is stated in Byles on BILL OF EXCHANGE (24thEdition) at page 282 as follows:"A banker clearly gives value for a bill when hediscounts it, the transaction consisting of thepurchase of the bill at a discount, i.e. allowing the

interest for the time the bill has to run, subject in theevent of dishonour to a right of recovery from theperson for whom it is discounted."The practice of the Bank itself, at the time ofdiscounting is as disclosed in the letter used to besent along with the intimation of discount whichshowed that in case of delayed payment an overdueinterest at a particular rate had to be collected if notpaid on presentation. These facts are sufficient tohold that the amount in question is interest underSec. 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act.It is settled law that interest is damages orcompensation for delayed payment of money due.Therefore the expression `compensation' in Section32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will includeinterest paid by way of damages or compensationfor delayed payments. We have already held thatDiscounting of Bills is a form of advance or loan,and hence compensation paid on delayed paymentof money due thereon is interest on loans andadvances. Discount on bill is a form of advance orloan granted to its customer by a Bank and if that bethe true position as indicated by Paget any amountcollected by the Bank for delayed payment of thatamount cannot be anything but interest, whatevermay be the nomenclature, and is chargeableinterest for the purpose of Interest Tax Act." [atpages 610 - 611] 913. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. State Bankof Patiala, (2008) 300 ITR 395 (P&H) has merely reiterated theaforesaid view.14. On the other hand, the Madhya Pradesh High Court inCommissioner of Income-Tax v. State Bank of Indore,(1988) 172 ITR 24 has reasoned thus:- "Now the right to charge the amount for delay in payment of bills accrued to the assessee by virtue of the provisions of section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into by the assessee with its constituents in pursuance of which bills were purchased by the assessee. On account of delayed payment of bills purchased by the assessee, the assessee became entitled to liquidated damages by way of compensation, as stipulated in the agreement. The right to charge that amount by the assessee did not, therefore, arise on account of any delay in repayment of any loan or advance made by the assessee. That right accrued on account of default in the payment of the bills. It may be that the amount payable by way of compensation for detention of a sum of money due, can be said to be covered by the expression "interest" in its widest sense, including both interest proper and interest by way of damages. But the provisions of the Interest-tax Act are attracted only

in the case of interest on loans and advances. The amount charged by the assessee for delayed payment of bills cannot be held to be "interest on loans and advances". In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the amounts in question charged by the assessee for delayed 10 payment of bills were in the nature of interest on advances and exigible to tax under the Interest-tax Act." [at page 28]The Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs.State Bank of Travancore, [1997] 228 ITR 40 (Ker), in arrivingat the same conclusion as the Madhya Pradesh High Court,has, however, adopted a different line of reasoning in thefollowing terms:- "These overdue bills are presented to the bank by the makers for the purpose of their recovery. As far as the makers are concerned, there may be justified or required circumstances for them to approach the bank. The bank has ready facilities for recovery, more statutory powers of stringent character and, therefore, the practice gets established that the makers hand over the overdue bills to the bank for recovery. It is thereafter that the bank sets in motion. In other words, what is undertaken by the bank is the recovery of the amount covered by the bill and in regard to which, by virtue of Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a statutory liability is created with regard to the prompt payment. The details that are available in the context would show that the origin of the amount which is the subject-matter of an overdue bill gets snapped. In other words, the moment the maker presents the overdue bill to the bank for recovery, it becomes a document negotiable in itself on its own strength empowering the bank to effect recovery and creating the liabilities of the parties as regards prompt payment thereof. In such a situation, ignoring the intermittent acrobatics as to whether 11 the amount can be understood as interest or could continue to have the character of its description as compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, would be wholly unnecessary, at least for the purpose of consideration as to whether the amount can assume the character of "chargeable interest". It is elementary in the context that taxation liability has to be understood and established and unless this is apparent from the material on record, the imposition of tax does not get justified. In other words, unless the amount which is sought to be chargeable as the chargeable interest has any necessary relationship with loans and advances, such an attempt to understand the amount alone would not satisfy the requirement of justification."15. Likewise, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in

Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Hyderabad,[2014] 367 ITR 128 (AP) has also dissented from the KarnatakaHigh Court's view. In addition, the Andhra Pradesh High Courthas reasoned thus: "It is not uncommon that banks purchase Bills of Exchange from their customers and make payments, on being satisfied that they are in order. Whenever the purchase of Bills of Exchange takes place, the purported transaction comes to be governed by Section 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The basic transaction of borrowing and lending is required to be between the persons described as "maker" and "acceptor" under Section 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The person who purchased the Bills of Exchange becomes the 12 "bearer" thereof. Section 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, defines the liability of the concerned persons to discharge their respective obligations. However, it is difficult to imagine that the purchaser of the Bills of Exchange can be treated as a person who has advanced the loans, to the original borrower. For all practical purposes a different transaction altogether, comes into existence."The Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., [2008]296 ITR 601 (Mad ) has simply followed the Kerala High Court'sview, and the Rajasthan High Court in a judgment dated12.11.2014, which is the impugned judgment in Civil AppealNo.4988 of 2015, has reasoned thus:- "The assessee-bank got right to charge the amount for the delay in payment of bills accrued to the assessee by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 32 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, that its constituents (borrowers), the bills were purchased by the assessee and on account of the delayed payment of bills, the assessee became entitled to liquidated damages by way of compensation from the borrower. The right to charge that amount by the assessee did not, therefore, arise on account of any delay in re-payment of any loan or advances made by the assessee. It may be that the amount payable by way of compensation for detention of a sum of money due, can be said to be covered by the expression "interest" in its widest sense including interest proper and interest by way of damages but 13the provision of the Interest Tax Act can be said tobe attracted only in case of interest received onloans and advances. However, the transaction endson the due date occurs and the relationship ofborrower lender ends.

In our view, the scope and definition of the term"interest" cannot be interpreted to bring within itsfold any income that is booked by an assesseeunder the head interest. The character of anoverdue bill is not synonymous with the loans andadvances and, therefore, it will not fall within theambit and scope of interest u/s 2 (7) of the InterestTax Act. The Parliament in its own wisdom has notincluded any amount that is recovered in the form ofinterest, penalty or otherwise under the definition ofInterest and had it been so, such nature of amountas contended by the revenue could have beenbrought within the ambit and scope of interest.We are further of the view that on the duedate/cutoff date whatever amount has beenrecovered by the assessee bank, will certainly fall inthe nature of interest, but once the due date/cutoffdate is over, any amount received after that date bythe bank, would be in the nature ofcompensation/penalty/liquidated damages and willnot be "interest". It is well settled proposition of lawthat the way in which entries are made by anassessee in its books of account or thenomenclature given to a transaction by the parties isnot determinative of the due character/nature of thattransaction. The definition as we have pointed out of''interest'', shall not cover the amount received bythe assessee after the due date.We have gone through the judgments rendered byvarious High Courts as quoted above and are not inconformity with the view of Karnataka and Punjaband Haryana High Court and we concur with theview of Madhya Pradesh & Kerala High Court. 14 Recently the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court also had an occasion to consider the same issue in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad: (2014) 367 ITR 128 and after considering the same issue, as is being examined by this Court and have come to the conclusion that the amount received after due date is not in the nature of interest. Accordingly, in our view, the amount received as "overdue interest" in inland/foreign demand bills is not liable to be taxed as interest under the Interest Tax Act and we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue."We are of the view that the Karnataka High Court's reasoning isfallacious for the simple reason that Section 2(7) itself makes adistinction between loans and advances made in India anddiscount on bills of exchange drawn or made in India. It isobvious that if discounted bills of exchange were also to betreated as loans and advances made in India there would be noneed to extend the definition of "interest" to include discount onbills of exchange. Indeed, this matter is no longer res integra.In CIT v. Sahara India Savings & Investment Corpn. Ltd.,(2009) 17 SCC 43, this Court while dealing with the definition

contained in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, held:- 15"Section 2(5) defines "chargeable interest" to meantotal amount of interest referred to in Section 5,computed in the manner laid down in Section 6. Inother words, the "scope of chargeable interest" isdefined under Section 5 whereas "computation ofchargeable interest" is under Section 6. Section 2(7)is the heart of the matter as far as the present caseis concerned.In accounting sense, there is a conceptualdifference between loans and advances on the onehand and investments on the other hand. Section2(7) defines the word "interest" to mean interest on"loans and advances including commitmentcharges, discount on promissory notes and bills ofexchange but not to include interest referred tounder Section 42(1-B) of the Reserve Bank of IndiaAct, 1934 as well as discount on treasury bills".Section 2(7), therefore, defines what is interest inthe first part and that first part confines interest onlyto loans and advances, including commitmentcharges, discount on promissory notes and bills ofexchange.Pausing here, it is clear that the interest tax ismeant to be levied only on interest accruing onloans and advances but the legislature, in itswisdom, has extended the meaning of the word"interest" to two other items, namely, commitmentcharges and discount on promissory notes and billsof exchange. In normal accounting sense, "loansand advances", as a concept, is different fromcommitment charges and discounts and keeping inmind the difference between the three, thelegislature, in its wisdom, has specifically includedin the definition under Section 2(7) commitmentcharges as well as discounts. The fact remains thatinterest on loans and advances will not cover underSection 2(7) interest on bonds and debenturesbought by an assessee as and by way of"investment". Even the exclusionary part of Section 16 2(7) excludes only discount on treasury bills as well as interest under Section 42(1-B) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934." [at paras 5 - 7]16. The Karnataka High Court's view is directly contrary to theview of this Court, and, therefore, cannot be countenanced."Loans and advances" has been held to be different from"discounts" and the legislature has kept in mind the differencebetween the two. It is clear therefore that the right to charge foroverdue interest by the assessee banks did not arise onaccount of any delay in repayment of any loan or advancemade by the said banks. That right arose on account of defaultin the payment of amounts due under a discounted bill of

exchange. It is well settled that a subject can be brought to taxonly by a clear statutory provision in that behalf. Interest ischargeable to tax under the Interest Tax Act only if it arisesdirectly from a loan or advance. This is clear from the use ofthe word "on" in Section 2(7) of the Act. Interest payable "on" adiscounted bill of exchange cannot therefore be equated withinterest payable "on" a loan or advance. This being the case, itis clear that the reasoning contained in the High Courts which 17differ from the Karnataka view is obviously correct but for thereasons given by us.17. It will be interesting to notice at this stage that theexpression "interest" is also defined under the Income Tax Act.Section 2(28A) defines interest as follows:- "2. Definitions.--- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires. [(28A) "interest" means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilized.]"18. It will be noticed that this definition is much wider thanthat contained in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. Theexpression "payable in any manner in respect of any moneysborrowed" is an expression of considerable width. It will benoticed that the aforesaid language of the definition sectioncontained in the Income Tax Act is broader than that containedin the Interest Tax Act in three respects. Firstly, interest can bepayable in any manner whatsoever. Secondly, the expression"in respect of" includes interest arising even indirectly out of a 18money transaction, unlike the word "on" contained in Section2(7) which, we have already seen, connotes a direct arising ofpayment of interest out of a loan or advance. And thirdly, "anymoneys borrowed" must be contrasted with "loan or advances".The former expression would certainly bring within its ken

moneys borrowed by means other than by way of loans oradvances. We therefore conclude that the Interest Tax Act,unlike the Income Tax Act, has focused only on a very narrowtaxable event which does not include within its ken interestpayable on default in payment of amounts due under adiscounted bill of exchange.19. In fact, when we come to the second point agitated insome of the appeals by revenue namely as to whetherguarantee fees paid to the Deposit Insurance and CreditGuarantee Corporation could be included in the definition ofinterest in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974, it will beclear that such definition does not include any service fee orother charges in respect of monies borrowed or debt incurred,again unlike the definition of `interest' under the Income Tax Act.We find that the Rajasthan High Court in the impugned 19judgment in Civil Appeal No.4988 of 2015 is correct when itobserved:- "On conjoint reading of the definition of interest, which has been quoted herein above and under the Interest Tax Act in para 4 (supra), it is noticed that the Interest Tax Act, does not include the term "any service fee or other charges in respect of money charge or debt incurred." under its ambit and putting to test the principle of harmonious interpretation, it is evident that the parliament in its wisdom has chosen not to add the aforesaid terminology under the Interest Tax Act, and what has not been mentioned neither be added nor is 22 required to be read in between the lines. We have already observed about principles of interpretation in para 8.5 and 8.6 (supra) and mere crediting the said amount as interest will certainly not entitle the revenue to treat the same as interest. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills and Godhra Electricity (supra) have clearly expressed that mere crediting the amount under a head is not determinative of the real nature and real intent and purpose of the transaction is required to be seen. Therefore, we hold that the amount recovered by the assessee from the constituents (borrower) cannot be taxed as interest in the hands of the assessee. On perusal of definition, it is distinctively clear that such charges recovered by the bank cannot be equated to the term interest under the Act. Though the receipt of Guarantee Fees received from constituents (borrowers) is not linked to what is paid to DICGC as insurance cover on behalf of depositors, the issue is not relevant for the reason

stated by us herein above." 2020. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeals of revenueand allow the appeals of the assessees and set aside thejudgments in favour of revenue. ........................J. (A.K. Sikri) ........................J.New Delhi; (R.F. Nariman)November 18, 2015 21ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.12 SECTION IIIA(For judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Nos. 5212-5220/2007M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALATR.GEN.MANAGER Appellant(s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondent(s)WITHC.A. No. 3185/2015C.A. No. 3383/2015C.A. No. 3764/2015C.A. No. 3766/2015C.A. No. 13465/2015(@ SLP(C) No. 13359/2015)C.A. No. 3380/2015C.A. No. 3763/2015C.A. No. 13464/2015(@ SLP(C) No. 13357/2015)C.A. No. 4008/2015C.A. No. 4322/2015C.A. No. 4987/2015C.A. No. 4988/2015

C.A. No. 4990/2015C.A. No. 4991/2015C.A. No. 4992/2015 22C.A. No. 4993/2015C.A. No. 4994/2015C.A. No. 4995/2015C.A. No. 4996/2015C.A. No. 4997/2015C.A. No. 4986/2015C.A. No. 5328/2015C.A. No. 3381/2015C.A. No. 3382/2015Date : 18/11/2015 These appeals were called on for pronouncement ofjudgment today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Tarun Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman pronounced thejudgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. JusticeA.K. Sikri and His Lordship. Leave granted in SLP (C)Nos. 13359 of 2015 and13357 of 2015. The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and theappeals of the assessees are allowed and the judgmentsin favour of Revenue are set aside in terms of thesigned reportable judgment. In view thereof, applications pending, if any,stand disposed of. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Rajinder Kaur) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.] 23

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 5212-5220/2007 M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 3185/2015 C.A. No. 3383/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3764/2015 C.A. No. 3766/2015 SLP(C) No. 13359/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3380/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3763/2015 SLP(C) No. 13357/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 4008/2015 C.A. No. 4322/2015 C.A. No. 4987/2015 C.A. No. 4988/2015 C.A. No. 4990/2015 C.A. No. 4991/2015 C.A. No. 4992/2015 C.A. No. 4993/2015 C.A. No. 4994/2015 C.A. Nos. 5212-5220/2007 etc. 1

C.A. No. 4995/2015 C.A. No. 4996/2015 C.A. No. 4997/2015 C.A. No. 4986/2015 C.A. No. 5328/2015 C.A. No. 3381/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3382/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 04/11/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Parties Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. Mr. Krishnaveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. Mr. Ashish Parikh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Vijay, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. M. Singh, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER C.A. Nos. 5212-5220/2007 etc. 2

8 ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Nos. 5212-5220/2007 M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 3185/2015 C.A. No. 3383/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3764/2015 C.A. No. 3766/2015 SLP(C) No. 13359/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3380/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3763/2015 SLP(C) No. 13357/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 4008/2015 C.A. No. 4322/2015 C.A. No. 4987/2015 C.A. No. 4988/2015 C.A. No. 4990/2015 C.A. No. 4991/2015 C.A. No. 4992/2015Signature Not Verified C.A. No. 4993/2015Digitally signed byASHWANI KUMARDate: 2015.11.0417:09:19 ISTReason: C.A. No. 4994/2015 C.A. Nos. 5212-5220/2007 etc. 1C.A. No. 4995/2015C.A. No. 4996/2015C.A. No. 4997/2015C.A. No. 4986/2015

C.A. No. 5328/2015C.A. No. 3381/2015(With Office Report)C.A. No. 3382/2015(With Office Report)Date : 04/11/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Parties Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. Mr. Krishnaveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. Mr. Ashish Parikh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Vijay, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. M. Singh, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERC.A. Nos. 5212-5220/2007 etc. 2

1 ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5212-5220/2007 M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 3185/2015 C.A. No. 3383/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3764/2015 C.A. No. 3766/2015 SLP(C) No. 13359/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3380/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3763/2015 SLP(C) No. 13357/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 4008/2015 C.A. No. 4322/2015 C.A. No. 4987/2015 C.A. No. 4988/2015 C.A. No. 4990/2015 C.A. No. 4991/2015 C.A. No. 4992/2015 C.A. No. 4993/2015 C.A. No. 4994/2015

2 C.A. No. 4995/2015 C.A. No. 4996/2015 C.A. No. 4997/2015 C.A. No. 4986/2015 C.A. No. 5328/2015 C.A. No. 3381/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3382/2015 (With Office Report) Date : 15/10/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Ms. Akanksha Kaushik,Adv. For Ms. Shobha,Adv. Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhatt, Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta,Adv. Mr. Krishnaveer Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, list the matters on 27.10.2015. (Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Ú 1 ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 5212-5220/2007 M/S. STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 3185/2015 C.A. No. 3383/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3764/2015 C.A. No. 3766/2015 SLP(C) No. 13359/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3380/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 3763/2015 SLP(C) No. 13357/2015 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 4008/2015 C.A. No. 4322/2015 C.A. No. 4987/2015 C.A. No. 4988/2015 C.A. No. 4990/2015 C.A. No. 4991/2015 C.A. No. 4992/2015Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byASHWANI KUMARDate: 2015.10.15 C.A. No. 4993/201518:02:07 ISTReason: C.A. No. 4994/2015 2C.A. No. 4995/2015C.A. No. 4996/2015

C.A. No. 4997/2015C.A. No. 4986/2015C.A. No. 5328/2015C.A. No. 3381/2015(With Office Report) C.A. No. 3382/2015(With Office Report)Date : 15/10/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Appellant(s) Ms. Akanksha Kaushik,Adv. For Ms. Shobha,Adv. Mr. A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhatt, Adv. Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta,Adv. Mr. Krishnaveer Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, listthe matters on 27.10.2015. (Ashwani Thakur) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ô ITEM NO.64 COURT NO.14 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Diary No(s). 14600/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/05/2014 in MAT No. 1679/2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) PRASENJIT MAZUMDER Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Respondent(s) (Office report on default) Date : 08/10/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai,Adv.(Not Present) For Respondent(s) The Court made the following O R D E R Nobody appears for the petitioner. Four weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner for removing the defects as pointed out by the Registry in office report. (Neeta) (Saroj Saini)Signature Not Verified Sr. P.A. Court MasterDigitally signed byNeeta SapraDate: 2015.10.0816:43:26 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 12425/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/11/2014 IN DBITA NO. 135/2004 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II, JAIPUR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 10/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.4986 of 2015. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12425 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURII, JAIPUR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. ITA No. 135 of 2004 and is barred by time by 106 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Special Leave Petition No. 13357 of 2015 @CC No. 7325 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR II, JAIPUR vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR” arising from common Order is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27 th April, 2015 when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of the Order dated 27 th April, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that C.A. No. 4986 of 2015 @SLP(C) No. 17717 of 2015 @CC No. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” arising from common Order is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 2 nd July, 2015 when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the Order dated 2 nd July, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.21+52 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2015 (CC No(s). 9114/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/11/2014 in DBITA No. 91/2004 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP & Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment) WITH S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9404/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9507/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9896/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9950/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9260/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 10046/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 11980/2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 12057/2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 12083/2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 12164/2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) ...2/-

-2- Date : 02/07/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta,ASG Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv. Mr. Kabir Hathi,Adv. Mrs.Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with C.A. No.3380 of 2015. Office is directed not to call for the original record(s) for the present. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 9950 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for condonation of delay in refiling Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR AND ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the final Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 130 of 2004 and is barred by time by 44 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. Counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition after curing the defects which is barred by time by 32 days. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” as both are arising from common Order and between the same parties. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Counsel for the petitioner has filed a letter dated 20 th May, 2015 stating therein that Judgments including CIT vs State Bank of Indore referred at page No. 17of the impugned Order are not relevant. Copy of letter is annexed at page No. 102 of the paper books. The matter alongwith applications abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 9896 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 155 of 2004 and is barred by time by 73 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” as both are arising from common Order and between the same parties. The matter alongwith application abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar , Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO... CC 9114 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above-mentioned are filed against the judgment and order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in I.T.A No. 91 of 2004 and is barred by time by 73 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed applications for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition No. 13359 of 2015 @ CC No. 7372 of 2015 entitled “ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ” arising from common order is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27 th April, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has directed to issue notice. (Copy of order dated 27 th April, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference). The application alongwith matter above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12164 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in DBITA No. 82 of 2004 and is barred by time by 87 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” as both are arising from common Order. The matter alongwith application abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 9404 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in IT Reference No. 58 of 1995 and is barred by time by 91 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 9114 of 2015 as both are arising from common Order. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that Counsel for the petitioner has filed a letter stating therein that present case relates to assessment year 19761977 to 19861987. Therefore each assessment year are required to be annexed in the present SLP. Copy of letter is annexed at page No. 338 of Paper books The matter alongwith application abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 11980 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURII ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above-mentioned is filed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D. B. ITA No. 201 of 2005 and is barred by time by 99 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with Special Leave Petition (C) No... CC Nos. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ” as both are arising from common order. The application alongwith matter above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12083 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURII, JAIPUR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in DBITA No. 101 of 2004 and is barred by time by 99 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” as both are arising from common Order. The matter alongwith application abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO...CC 12057 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURII, JAIPUR ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in DBITA No. 100 of 2004 and is barred by time by 105 days. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” as both are arising from common Order. The matter alongwith application abovementioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 10046 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURII ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above-mentioned is filed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D. B. ITA No. 96 of 2004 and is barred by time by 101 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with Special Leave Petition (C) No... CC Nos. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ” as both are arising from common order and between the same parties. The application alongwith matter above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NOS...CC 9260 AND 9507 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR AND ANR. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petitions abovementioned are filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA Nos. 67 of 2004 and 87 of 1983 and is barred by time by 39 and 42 days respectively. The Counsel for the Petitioner has filed Application for Condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that both the matters have been tagged with CC No. 9114 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” as all are arising from common Order and between the same parties. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Counsel for the petitioner has filed additional documents in both the matters as per undertaking letter. Copy of the same has been included in the paper books. The matters alongwith application abovementioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Ms. Anil Katiyar Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ô ITEM NO.21+52 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2015 (CC No(s). 9114/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/11/2014 in DBITA No. 91/2004 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP & Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment) WITH S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9404/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9507/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9896/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9950/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 9260/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 10046/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 11980/2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 12057/2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 12083/2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Signature Not Verified S.L.P.(C)...../2015 (CC No. 12164/2015)Digitally signed byMadhu BalaDate: 2015.07.04 (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report)11:44:48 ISTReason: ...2/- -2-Date : 02/07/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBALFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta,ASG Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv. Mr. Kabir Hathi,Adv. Mrs.Anil Katiyar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with C.A. No.3380 of 2015. Office is directed not to call for the original record(s) for the present. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 8003/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/11/2014 IN ITA NO. 153/2004 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 07/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.3380 of 2015 . [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 8003/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/11/2014 IN ITA NO. 153/2004 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 07/05/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.3380 of 2015. [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVinod LakhinaDate: 2015.05.0816:06:29 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2015 (CC No(s). 7325/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/11/2014 in ITA No. 156/2004 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - II, JAIPUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 7372/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 27/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj K.Kaul,ASG Ms. Atreyi Chatterjee,Adv. Mrs.Anil Katiyar,Adv. Ms. Chanan Parwani,Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv. Mr. Attrey Chatterjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order is allowed. Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal NO.3380 of 2015. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 7372 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPURII ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition above-mentioned is filed against the final judgment and order dated 12th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in I.T.A. No. 105 of 2004 and is barred by time by 39 days. The Counsel for petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with Special Leave Petition (C) No... CC 7325 of 2015 entitled “ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - II, JAIPUR vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR ” as both are arising from common order. The matter alongwith applications above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:- Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ac3

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 7325 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR II ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 156 of 2004 and is barred by time by 37 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Civil Appeal No. 3380 of 2015 @SLP(C) No. 10821 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR & ANR. vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” arising from common Order is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 6 th April, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave . (Copy of the Order dated 6 th April, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

º ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2015 (CC No(s). 7325/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/11/2014 in ITA No. 156/2004 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR - II, JAIPUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order and office report) WITH S.L.P.(C).../2015 (CC No. 7372/2015) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) Date : 27/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj K.Kaul,ASG Ms. Atreyi Chatterjee,Adv. Mrs.Anil Katiyar,Adv. Ms. Chanan Parwani,Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv. Mr. Attrey Chatterjee,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing certified copy of impugned order is allowed. Delay condoned.Signature Not Verified Issue notice.Digitally signed byMadhu BalaDate: 2015.04.27 Tag with Civil Appeal NO.3380 of 2015.16:27:35 ISTReason: (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........../2015 (CC No(s).7032/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/08/2014 in RC No.63/2001 passed by the High Court Of A.P. At Hyderabad) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, HYDERABAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 24/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha,ASG Mr. D.L. Chidananda,Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned Leave granted. Tag with C.A.No.3185/2015 @ SLP(C)No.9403/2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Tapan Kumar Chakraborty) Court Master Court Master

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 7032 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2 (Application for condonation of delay in Refiling Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 13 th August, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Referred Case No. 63 of 2001 and is barred by time by 108 days. The Counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed application for condonation of delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition after curing the defects which is barred by time by 13 days. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2015 @SLP(C) No. 9403 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX3 HYDERABAD vs STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD” arising from relied upon Order is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 23 rd March, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave . (Copy of the Order dated 23 rd March, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith applications above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

^ ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........../2015 (CC No(s).7032/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/08/2014 in RC No.63/2001 passed by the High Court Of A.P. At Hyderabad) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, HYDERABAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) Date : 24/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha,ASG Mr. D.L. Chidananda,Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna,Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned Leave granted. Tag with C.A.No.3185/2015 @ SLP(C)No.9403/2015. (Sarita Purohit) (Tapan Kumar Chakraborty) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySarita PurohitDate: 2015.04.2510:36:45 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.20 & 64 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 6726/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/11/2014 IN ITA NO. 157/2004 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR II JAIPUR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6767/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) S.L.P.(C)..CC NO.7191/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 17/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.3380 of 2015. [VINOD LAKHINA] COURT MASTER [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 6726 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I JAIPUR II ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 157 of 2004 and is barred by time by 39 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Civil Appeal No. 3380 of 2015 @SLP(C) No. 10821 of 2015 entitled “COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR & ANR. vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR” arising from common Order is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 6 th April, 2015, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave . (Copy of the Order dated 6 th April, 2015 is enclosed herewith for reference.) The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 6767 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR II ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the final Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 181 of 2005 and is barred by time by 37 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 6726 of 2015 entitled “ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR II JAIPUR vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ” as both are arising from common Order. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

² ITEM NO.20 & 64 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)......CC NO(S). 6726/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/11/2014 IN ITA NO. 157/2004 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR II JAIPUR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6767/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) S.L.P.(C)..CC NO.7191/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR C/DELAY IN FILING SLP AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 17/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. Manish Pushkarna, Adv. Ms. Niranjana Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No.3380 of 2015.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byVinod LakhinaDate: 2015.04.1716:12:56 ISTReason: [VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.27+67 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2015 (CC No(s). 5980/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/11/2014 in ITA No. 83/2004 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and office report) With SLP(C)No...../2015 (CC No. 6246 of 2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) SLP(C)No...../2015 (CC No. 6279 of 2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) SLP(C)No...../2015 (CC Nio. 6278 of 2015) (With appln. For c.delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv. Ms. Anita Sahani,Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and order is allowed. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with C.A.Nos. 5212-5220 of 2007. (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Matter shown in Supplementary List 6 th April,2015 SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 6246 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR II ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the final impugned Judgment and Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench Jaipur in ITTA No. 230 of 2005 and is barred by time by 32 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 5980 of 2015 entitled “ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR & ANR. vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ” as both are arising from common Order. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

Matter shown in Supplementary List 6 th April,2015 SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 6279 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR II ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 97 of 2004 and is barred by time by 32 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 5980 of 2015 entitled “ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR & ANR. vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ” as both are arising from common Order. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

Matter shown in Supplementary List 6 th April,2015 SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO...CC 6278 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition.) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR II ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition abovementioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and final Order dated 12 th November, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur in ITA No. 93 of 2004 and is barred by time by 42 days. The counsel for the petitioner has filed Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the instant matter has been tagged with CC No. 5980 of 2015 entitled “ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR & ANR. vs STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ” as both are arising from common Order. The matter alongwith application above mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rm4

ITEM NO.27+67 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....../2015 (CC No(s). 5980/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12/11/2014 in ITA No. 83/2004 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jaipur) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP, exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and office report) With SLP(C)No...../2015 (CC No. 6246 of 2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) SLP(C)No...../2015 (CC No. 6279 of 2015) (With appln. For c/delay in filing SLP and office report) SLP(C)No...../2015 (CC Nio. 6278 of 2015) (With appln. For c.delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 06/04/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv. Ms. Anita Sahani,Adv. Ms. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and order is allowed. Delay condoned.Signature Not Verified Leave granted.Digitally signed byMadhu BalaDate: 2015.04.06 Tag with C.A.Nos. 5212-5220 of 2007.16:45:18 ISTReason: (MADHU BALA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........../2015 (CC No(s).4752/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/06/2014 in RC No.46/1999 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 HYDERABAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 23/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Mr. D.L. Chidananda,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5212-5220 of 2007. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar

Listed on : Court. No. : Item No.. : SECTION IIIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO... CC 4752 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1 (Application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX3 ....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD ....RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition(s) above mentioned is filed against the impugned Judgment and order dated 10 th June, 2014 of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Referred Case No. 46 of 1999 and is barred by time by 135 days. The Counsel of the Petitioner has filed Application(s) for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition. It is further submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Court that the C.A. No. 52125220 of 2007 @ SLP(C) No. 2874 of 2007 entitled “STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER vs COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA” referred to on Page “C” of list of dates is pending which was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 12 th December, 2007, when the Hon'ble Court has granted leave. (Copy of the order dated 12 th December, 2007 is enclosed herewith for reference). The matter alongwith above mentioned application are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office Report. DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR LG3

\202 ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No........../2015 (CC No(s).4752/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/06/2014 in RC No.46/1999 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 HYDERABAD Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date : 23/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Mr. D.L. Chidananda,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai,Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos.5212-5220 of 2007. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySarita PurohitDate: 2015.03.2511:30:13 ISTReason:

àIT E M NO.2 9 COUR T NO.6 S EC T I O N IIIA S UP R E M E C O UR T OF I N D I A R EC O R D OF P R OC E E D I N G SPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2 8 7 4 / 2 0 0 7(From the judgment and order dated 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 0 6 in Income- tax Reference Nos.2to 1 0 of 1 9 9 4 of The HIGH COUR T OF PUN J A B & HAR Y A N A ATCHAND I G A R H)STA T E BA N K OF PA T I A L A TR.G E N . M A N A G E R Petitioner(s) VE R S U SCOMM R.O F INCOM E TAX, P A T I A L A Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 1 2 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 7 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E G.P. MAT HU R HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E V.S. SI R P U R K A RFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardh a n Jh a, Adv. Mr. Yashr aj Sigh Deora, Adv. for M/S K.L. Mehta & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. T.A. Kha n, Adv. Mr. Gaurv Agrawal, Adv. Mr. B.V. Bal a r a m Das,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following OR D E R Leave granted. (K.K. Chawla) (Radha R. Bhatia) Court Master Court Master

*ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2874/2007(From the judgement and order dated 05/09/2006 in ITR No. 2 to 10 of 1994 ofThe HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Petitioner(s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 22/10/2007 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv. for M/S K.L. Mehta & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER In view of the letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondent, the case is adjourned by three weeks for filing the counter-affidavit. (Pardeep Kumar) (Radha R. Bhatia)Court Master Court Master

nIT E M NO.4 6 COURT NO.2 S EC T I O N IIIA S UP R E M E COUR T OF I N D I A R ECO R D OF P R OC E E D I N G SPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2 8 7 4 / 2 0 0 7(From the judgement and order dated 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 0 6 in IT R Nos. 2 to 1 0 of 1 9 9 4 ofThe HIGH COUR T OF PUN J A B & HA R Y A N A AT CHAN DI G A R H)STA T E BAN K OF PA T I A L A TR.G E N . M A N A G E R Petitioner(s) VE R S U SCOMM R.O F INCOM E TAX, P A T I A L A Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 3 1 / 0 8 / 2 0 0 7 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORA M : HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E ASHO K BHA N HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E V.S. SI R P U R K A RFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Av. Mr. Harshvardh a n Jha, Adv. Mr. Yashr aj Singh Deora, Adv. for M/S K.L. Mehta & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaur av Agrawal, Adv. for Mr. B.V. Bal a r a m Das, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following OR D E R Mr. Gaur av Agrawal, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of the respondent andseeks time to file counter- affidavit. May do so within four weeks. Rejoinder, ifany, be filed within two weeks thereafter. To come up after six weeks.(J.S. Rawat) (Kanwal Singh) AR- cum- P S Court Master

IT E M NO.1 1 3 R E G I S T R A R ' S COUR T NO.1 SEC T I O N IIIA S UP R E M E C OUR T OF I N D I A R E CO R D OF P R OC E E D I N G S B E F O R E R E G I S T R A R B. SUDH E E N D R A KUMA RPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2 8 7 4 / 2 0 0 7STAT E BAN K OF PA T I A L A TR.G E N . M A N A G E R Petitioner(s) VE R S U SCOMM R.O F INCOM E TAX, P A T I A L A Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 1 3/ 0 8 / 2 0 0 7 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harshvardha n Jha, Adv. Mr. Yashs ra j Singh Deora, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. for M/S K. L. Mehta & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following OR D E R There is neither appeara nce nor representation for the respondentsbefore this Court today. Therefore, list before the Hon'ble Court. (B. Sudheendra Kuma r) Registra r

dIT E M NO.4 0 COURT NO.7 SEC T I O N IIIA S UP R E M E C O UR T O F I N D I A R E CO R D OF P R OC E E D I N G SPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2 8 7 4 / 2 0 0 7(From the judgement and order dated 05 / 0 9 / 2 0 0 6 in Income Tax Reference Nos. 2to 10 of 19 9 4 of The HIGH COURT OF PUN J A B & HAR Y A N A AT CHAND I G A R H)STA T E BAN K OF PA T I A L A TR.G E N . M A N A G E R Petitioner(s) VE R S U SCOMM R .O F INCOM E TAX, P A T I A L A Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 10 / 0 7 / 2 0 0 7 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORA M : HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E G.P. MATHU R HON'B L E MR. JUS T I C E P. K . BA L A SU B R A M A N Y A NFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardh an Jha, Adv. Mr. Yashr aj Singh Deora, Adv. for M/S K. L. Mehta & Co.For Respondent(s) Mr. D.K. Singh, Adv. Mr. Pr adeep Shukla, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balra md a s, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed by learned counsel for the Respondent, four weeks' time is granted for filing counter affidavit. (K. K. Chawla) (Radh a R. Bh atia) Court Master Court Master

ðITEM NO.102 REGISTRAR'S COURT NO.1 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE REGISTRAR B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2874/2007STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Petitioner(s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 30/04/2007 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) M/S K.L. Mehta & Co.,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Deleted.

(B. Sudheendra Kumar) Registrar

ÄITEM NO.32 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).2874/2007(From the judgement and order dated 05/09/2006 in ITR No. 2/1994 & ITR No. 3/1994 & ITR No. 4/1994 & ITR No. 5/1994 & ITR No. 6/1994 & ITR No. 7/1994 &ITR No. 8/1994 & ITR No. 9/1994 & ITR No. 10/1994 of The HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)STATE BANK OF PATIALA TR.GEN.MANAGER Petitioner(s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF INCOME TAX,PATIALA Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief )Date: 23/02/2007 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKARFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv. Mr. Vimal Kant Gupta, Adv. for M/S K.L. Mehta & Co.

For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. (Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Kanwal Singh) Court Master Court Master

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II v. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR

Full Judgment Text

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status