- (1.) THE IT Ref. No. 7 of 1976 relates to the asst. yrs. 1966-67 to 1970-71. THE reference application in this Court as such should be registered as 7, 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D of 1976 respectively.
(2.) THE Ref. No. 40 of 1976 relates to the asst yr. 1971-72 and parties in all the above cases are identical and the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, as such they are disposed of by a common order: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 81(v) of the IT Act,1961 for the asst. yrs. 1966-67 & 1967-68 and of s. 80P(2) (f) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yrs. 1968-69, 1969-70 & 1970-71 were not applicable to the interest received by the assessee on Government securities, which were held by it as part of its stock-in-trade?" The learned counsel for the Department has brought to our notice that Addl. CIT vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Bank Ltd. (1984) 19 Taxman 189 (Raj), Jaipur between the same parties for the asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1965-66 has already been disposed of by this Court on 13th March, 1984. The decision in the aforesaid case fully governs the question of law raised in the case before us except that the assessment years are different. The Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) has decided the following question which was raised before them: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 81(v) of the IT Act, 1961, were applicable to the interest received by the assessee on Government securities which were held by it as part of its stock-in-trade?" In the above case, it was held that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 81(v) of the IT Act, 1961 (`the Act') were not applicable to the interest received by the assessee on Government securities which were held by it as part of its stock-in-trade. The question referred was answered in the affirmative. The learned counsel for the Department tried to distinguish the above case, but we do not feel inclined to take a different view.
(3.) IN the result, the question referred to us in these cases are also answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs.;