K.G. Bansal, A.M.: only ground taken by assessee in this appeal is that on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in upholding finding of AO that investments in shares on Mumbai Stock Exchange were at par with loans and advances and consequently, income from such investments amounted to interest chargeable under IT Act, 1974. In this connection, it is mentioned in assessment order that assessee received income of Rs. 21,67,902 from Vyaj Badla transactions conducted at Mumbai Stock Exchange. This amount was not included in chargeable interest. It was explained that under Act what can be brought to tax is interest on loans and advances. Income from investment at Bombay Stock Exchange for Vyaj Badla transactions was on account of purchase and sale of shares and, thus, it did not amount to interest on loans and advances. AO considered facts of case and submissions made before him. On perusal of contract notes issued by M/s VAR Shares & Stock (P) Ltd., member of Bombay Stock Exchange, it was found that word "interest" was used. Therefore, his finding was that Vyaj Badla income was nothing but interest income. Accordingly, impugned amount of Rs. 21,67,970 was included in chargeable interest. assessee repeated more or less same facts before learned CIT(A). It was explained that Badla finance was required by buyers and sellers o f shares, who had outstanding positions on date of settlement. In case of over-bought positions, seller wanted to effect delivery of shares exceeding requirement of buyer. Therefore, finance was required, which is known as Vyaj Badla finance. In such case, transaction was carried forward and Vyaj Badla financiers receive difference in price prevailing on date of settlement and rate of sale in next settlement. position was opposite in case of Undha Badla or Teji Badla. Thus, Vyaj Badla finance was short-term investment for say about week. yield would vary from scrip-to-scrip on settlement date and also on general condition of money market. Such finance did not amount to loan or advance for reason that Badla financiers stepped into shoes of one of parties to transaction on settlement date and, therefore, transaction was in nature of purchase and sale of shares although involving fixed rate of return depending upon market conditions, etc. prevailing on date of particular settlement. learned CIT(A) did not accept submissions of assessee. He referred to decisions of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust No. 2 (1988) 70 CTR (Guj) 185: (1988) 172 ITR 698 (Guj), in which, according to him, it was held that where assessee deposited its funds in another concern without right of participation in profits, at fixed rate of interest, and value of investment did not fluctuate, such deposit could be termed as loan within meaning of s. 13(2)(a) of Act. It was pointed out that assessee had made short-term fund available to contracting parties at Bombay Stock Exchange on date of settlement with view to earn fixed rate of interest. This rate may vary from transaction to transaction and from settlement to settlement. But, amount was advanced at fixed rate of interest without leading to fluctuation in amount or right of participation in profits of either of contracting parties. Accordingly, it was held that transactions were in nature of loans and advances, and interest thereon was includible in chargeable interest. Before us, learned counsel for assessee referred to findings of AO and learned CIT(A), which have been summarized by us. Thereafter, he referred to p. 49 of paper book, which gives details of all transactions, numbering 53, leading to profit of Rs. 21,67,902. He also referred to various bills in respect of these transactions placed in paper book at pp. 50 to 73. In particular, reference was made to p. 56, being illustrative transaction narrated in bill. bill showed purchase of shares of seven companies for consideration of Rs. 91,66,645. According to him, delivery of these shares was taken by broker of assessee. These shares were subsequently sold to party who was having over-bought position and consequently delivery was given to him. Therefore, his case was that transaction amounted to purchase and sale of shares with predetermined rate of return. Since transaction involved purchase and sale of shares, return could not be said to be interest even if return was predetermined. He referred to provision contained in s. 5 of Act, under which chargeable interest shall be total amount of interest (other than interest on loans and advances made to other credit institutions or to any co-operative society engaged in carrying on business of banking) accruing or arising to credit institutions. term "interest" is defined under s. 2(7) to mean interest on loans and advances made in India. definition contains certain exceptions, which are not relevant for our purpose. Reliance was placed on order of Hon ble Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", (Special Bench), in case of Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2006) 102 TTJ (Del)(SB) 936: (2006) 5 SOT 918 (Del)(SB), in which reference was made to decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd. (2003) 185 CTR (All) 136: (2003) 264 ITR 646 (All), wherein it was pointed out that it was open to legislature to define word and if that has been done, that meaning has to be followed and meaning to word given in common parlance will not be applicable. Thus, meaning of word "interest" means only interest on loans and advances and this meaning could not be extended. As contended by learned counsel for assessee, it was his case that although finance is known as Vyaj Badla finance, which carries predetermined rate of return in respect to particular settlement and scrip, yet return is in respect of transactions in shares. Therefore, income so earned is not interest on loans and advances. In reply, learned Departmental Representative relied on order of learned CIT(A) and in particular on decision in case of Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust No. 2 (supra). We have considered facts of case and rival submissions. case o f assessee was that transactions were in nature of purchase and sale of shares, for which delivery was taken and given by broker. We find that there is no evidence of taking or giving delivery by broker of assessee as distinctive numbers of shares have not been mentioned in contract notes filed before us. Notwithstanding this deficiency, we are of view that taking and giving delivery by broker of assessee does not by itself lead to conclusion that transactions were for purchase and sale of shares. reason is that essence of Vyaj Badla transaction is not purchase and sale of shares but to provide finance for smooth carry over of transactions on settlement date in respect of persons who are in over-bought or over-sold position. In such situation, even if delivery is taken, it would be only security for finance provided by assessee as there was never any intention to purchase shares and subsequently sell them. Therefore, we are not in agreement with learned counsel that income was business income from purchase and sale of shares. In fact, it will be more correct to say that income was for providing finance to one of contracting parties for short period for carrying over transaction to next settlement period. Accordingly, we are of view that it is case of extending loan, income from which will be interest from loan, includible in chargeable interest. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** TULIP STAR HOTELS LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER