TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the company was set up ?" A few basic facts may now be noted. The assessee-company commenced its business during the assessment year 1980-81 and the reference application relates to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80. The company was incorporated on February 20, 1974. Being a Government of India undertaking the assessing authority noted that the company had not started its business operation as it was under construction stage. Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in CWT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 478 in the computation of income, the Assessing Officer included the income from interest in addition to the income from house property. The assessment was accordingly completed under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75] 98 ITR 167 (SC) was applicable to the facts of the case as held in a similar situation by a Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arasan Alluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 1 ITD 10 (Mad). The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the appeal preferred by the Revenue and accordingly-dismissed the same. The question as set forth above has now been referred for this court's opinion. Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, contended whether a particular receipt is of the nature of income is not a question raised before this court. It was further contended that Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s case [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC) has been explained and distinguished by the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to deal with the interest amount as he liked. The application of the income for payment of interest-could not affect its taxability in any way." Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, placing reliance on the following judgments : (1) CIT (Addl.) v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 134 (Delhi) ; (2) CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1988] 170 ITR 522 (Patna) ; (3) CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663 (AP) ; (4) CIT v. Electrochem Orissa Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 552 (Orissa) ; and (5) CIT v. Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 489 (Bom), contended that the view taken by the Tribunal in the face of these authorities was a justifiable view, and should not, therefore, be upse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
