TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee - DB Income Tax Appeal No.12/2005 - - - Dated:- 19-1-2016 - MR. AJAY RASTOGI AND MR. J.K. RANKA, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. With Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Jain, Adv. Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv. ORDER 1. Instant Income Tax Appeal u/Sec.260A of the Income Tax Act (for short, 'Act') is directed against the order dt.31/05/2004, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, 'Tribunal') and is relevant for the Assessment Year 1992-93. 2. The appeal was admitted by the Court vide order dated.31/01/2005 on the following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be allowed on the said interest received. However, the Assessing Officer (for short, 'AO'), after analyzing the material on record, was of the view that the interest received on advance to various persons (debtors) had no direct nexus with the business of export and these were idle funds lying with the assessee which was advanced to various persons which was not immediately needed in the business and accordingly held that it is income from other sources. 5. The matter travelled before the Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, 'CIT(A)') who was pleased to allow claim of the assessee that it had large number of transactions and it was continuous activity and thus held that it is in the nature of business income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ources and that thus the view of the Tribunal is well justified. 9. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and in our view, the issue is no more res-integra as the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Reliance Trading Corporation Vs. ITO (supra) has answered the questions in favour of the Revenue. Consequent thereto this Court in the case of CIT ors. Vs. Vimal Chand Surana and ors. (supra), had also gone into the issue at length and after considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties held that the deduction u/Sec. 80-HHC is not admissible on the interest earned by such exporters. It would be relevant to quote para 31 of the judgment (Vimal Chand Surana : supra) :- The Larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
