TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he factories of the assessee or in the factories belonging to third parties - - - - - Dated:- 7-2-2003 - Judge(s) : G. SIVARAJAN., J. M. JAMES. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by G. SIVARAJAN J. -This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Incometax, Thiruvananthapuram, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A. No. 410/Coch of 1996 for the assessment year 1992-93. Notice was ordered on the following questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the Kerala High Court's decision in Nanji Topanbhai and Co. v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 192, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the assessment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee also claimed deduction under section 80HH on a sum of Rs. 32,00,560 but limited to Rs. 26,66,680. The Assessing Officer noted that out of 24,563 bags of raw nuts processed during the year only 7,318 bags were processed in the assessee's factories in Kanyakumari district, a notified backward area, and that the remaining quantity was processed by third parties in their factories. The Assessing Officer accordingly allowed the deduction under section 80HH only in respect of the profit derived from the manufacturing done in his own factory and deduction was not allowed in respect of the profit derived from the cashew kernels processed in the factories belonging to third parties. He accordingly computed the deduction under section 80H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re this court. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Sri P.K.R. Menon, learned senior Central Government standing counsel for the appellant, submits that all the questions raised in this appeal are covered by the decisions of this court. Senior counsel submits that questions Nos. 1 and 2 relating to assessment of the interest income this court on identical circumstance had held in the judgment, dated November 8, 2002, in I.T.A. No. 291 of 2002 (K. Ravindranathan Nair v. Deputy CIT (Asstt.) [2003] 262 ITR 669) that such income has to be assessed under the head "Other sources". He also pointed out that in the said judgment earlier judgments of this court on this point were also considered. Regarding question No.3 it is submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the answer to question No. 3(a) is in the affirmative, question No. 3(b) does not arise for consideration and we decline to answer the said question. In view of our answer to the questions on which notices are issued we are of the view that no further enquiry by the Assessing Officer is required as directed by the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer has to modify the assessment in the light of our answer to the questions on which notice is ordered in this appeal. Since detailed reasons regarding the assessment of interest income under the head "Other sources" is contained in the judgment, dated November 8, 2002 in I.T.A. No. 291 of 2002 (K. Ravindranathan Nair v. Deputy CIT (Asstt.) [2003] 262 ITR 669 (Ker)), a copy of the said judgment wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
