TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. T. Act, 1961. On the other hand, if such interest is income from other sources as held by the respondent-Commissioner in the impugned order, Ex. P-3., then the set-off is not permissible. Section 33(1)(a) reads : " (a) In respect of new ship... which is owned by the assessee and is wholly used for the purposes of the business carried on by him, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section and of section 34, be allowed a deduction, in respect of the previous year in which the ship was acquired ... or, if the ship... is first put to use in the immediately succeeding previous year, then, in respect of that previous year, sum by way of development rebate as specified in clause (b). (b) The sum referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determined upon. " It is true that the company had the power to lend money as stated in para. 10. But it has never been the contention of the assessee that money was lent in the course of business. All that the assessee stated was that money was invested in the bank. That investment, as found by the Commissioner, was only to secure the money which was lying idle. An income earned from that source is, therefore, not an income earned in the course of business so as to make it a part of the profits and gains of the assessee's business. That is an income which has been found to be traceable to other sources. This was precisely the situation that was considered in Madhya Pradesh State Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 824 (MP), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its original character of a business profit, it seems to follow that a statutory accretion to the same must necessarily partake of the same character." That principle has no application to the facts of this case. The schemes of the two enactments are different. The term " business " had a wider connotation under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, than what it is under the I.T. Act. [See CIT v. Calcutta National Bank Ltd. [1959] 37 ITR 171 (SC)] In the present case the facts are not in dispute. The assessee is not a banking company. Money was not deposited by it by way of money-lending as a business. That was not its object. The interest arose from amounts deposited in bank otherwise than by way of business. The amount was deposited be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
