2020 (7) TMI 572 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 32AB - HELD THAT - Correctness of the finding rendered by the CIT(A) was tested by the tribunal and the tribunal confirmed the finding by observing that the CIT(A) has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the evidences to be furnished by the assessee to show that the purchase of machinery was made during the period under consideration so as to be eligible for the deduction of the claim under Section 32AB of the Act and pass consequential orders. Interest on deposits in IDBI - whether should be treated as business income purely because the deposits were made to comply with statutory provisions under the Income Tax Act? - HELD THAT - Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) has held that the interest received by the assessee from the deposits made in IDBI should be treated as business income only. These findings of fact coupled with law was affirmed by the tribunal in the impugned order and we agree with the elaborate reasoning given by the CIT(A). Thus we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1990-91. Substantial Question of Law raised regarding the treatment of interest on deposits in IDBI as business income. Claim for relief under Section 32AB of the Act by a joint venture company with the Government of India. Disagreement by the Assessing Officer on the claim. CIT(A) holding the interest received from Fixed Deposit as part of business income. Tribunal confirming the CIT(A)'s findings.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1990-91. The main substantial question of law raised was whether the interest on deposits in IDBI should be treated as business income due to compliance with statutory provisions under the Income Tax Act. The joint venture company with the Government of India claimed relief under Section 32AB of the Act, which was not agreed upon by the Assessing Officer, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that the interest received by the assessee from the Fixed Deposit should be considered part of the business income. The revenue then appealed to the tribunal, which upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, prompting the revenue to approach the High Court.

The Assessing Officer's denial of relief to the assessee was based on the argument that the items in question did not qualify as plant and machinery under Section 32AB of the Act. The CIT(A) reviewed this factual finding, considering the materials presented and the nature of the claimed purchases. The CIT(A) interpreted the term 'purchase' and concluded that it could involve direct buying, obtaining through labor, or acquiring by other means, ultimately granting relief to the assessee. The tribunal, in its evaluation, confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the purchase of machinery during the relevant period.

Moreover, the tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s determination that the interest received from deposits in IDBI should be classified as business income. The High Court concurred with the tribunal's reasoning, finding no substantial question of law to be addressed in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the tribunal's order was upheld. The High Court emphasized that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal, leading to no costs being awarded.