TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Authority cannot be accepted - Substantial questions of law is answered against the Assessee. - T.C.(A) Nos.140 and 141 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2011 - Mr. Justice P. JYOTHIMANI, Mr. Justice P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. Philip George For Respondent : Mr. K. Subramanian JUDGMENT P. JYOTHIMANI, J. The above Tax Case Appeals relate to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The said appeals are admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- " 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest income should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent judgments of Kerala High Court in NANJI THOPPANBAY CO. v. ACIT (243 (ITR) 192), CIT v. JOSE THOMAS (253 (ITR) 553) and ABAD ENTERPRISES v. CIT (253 (ITR) 319), has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) to the effect that the interest income should be computed as other sources and therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act came to be rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that even in the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. A.S. NIZAR AHMED CO. (259 (ITR) 244), it was held that since the assessee did not produce the letters from the Bank sanctioning the various credit limits and facilities, the Bench has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank on the credit facilities extended to it was less. It was also found by the CIT that when the bank later raised the interest rate on some of the facilities to 18 per cent the assessee withdrew a sum of Rs.60 lakhs from those deposits, without any detriment to the facilities that had been extended to it by the bank." 5. Learned counsel would rely upon various judgments to substantiate his contention that in cases where deposits have been made in the Bank and interest received and such deposit is for the purpose of conducting the business, it should be treated as income under the head "business". 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would retort that there is absolutely no record to show that in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our view, it is the fact that Rs.300.0 lacs have been deposited in the Bank for the purpose of availing the credit facilities from the Bank. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid two letters are sufficient to show that unless the credit facilities are availed, as exporters, the assessee cannot carry on business. Therefore, according to him, the said letters stated to have been produced before the Assessing Authority have not been considered. On a reading of the said letters extracted above, we do not find even the assessment year about which we are concerned. As stated above, the deposit of Rs.300.0 lacs made by the assessee to the Bank is not in dispute and availing interest from such deposit is also not disputed. The question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
