TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the following sums could not be considered as part of "eligible business profit"; (i) Interest on intercorporate deposits Rs. 18,46,847 (ii) Dividend income Rs. 13,41,200 (iii) Income from house property Rs. 2,40,000 ------------- Rs. 34,28,000 ------------- On assessee's appeal the Learned CIT(A) accepted the contention that interest income earned by the assessee on intercorporate deposits was eligible business profit. In respect of the other two items of income the Learned CIT(A) concurred with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Still aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing before us the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the order of the ITAT 'E' Bench, Mumbai dated 10th August, 2001 in ITA No. 9021/Bom/91 in the assessee's own case for assessment year 1989-90. The Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee also placed reliance on the order for ITAT Mumbai Bench 'D' Mumbai dated 4th August, 1998 in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court reported in CIT v. Dinjoye Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. [1997] 224 ITR 263 and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reported in CIT v. Warren Tea Ltd. [2001] 251 ITR 382. 7. The Learned D.R. also argued that the assessee had not established a case of the units having been acquired for the purpose of pledge with the banks before the authorities below. It was also not known whether all the units had been so pledged, 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, Ordinarily the rules of consistency demand that if a particular view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of a particular assessee himself, the same view should be followed in subsequent proceedings in the case of that assessee. However, if in the subsequent proceedings the judgment of superior authorities such as High Courts and the Apex Court require a different view to be taken, the judgment of the superior courts has to be given effect to, In the case of the assessee for assessment year 1989-90 the matter was dealt with by the Tribunal in the following words: "On a careful consideration of the issue, we are of opinion that the assessee is entitled to succeed, As has been pointed out on its behalf, section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of money representing "dividend" from units of the UTI and had included the said sums in the computation of its profit as income from "eligible business". It also claims that out of such income from "eligible business" it had purchased certain new machineries for its factory because of which it claimed a deduction of 20 per cent of the said income as provided in section 32AB of the Income-tax Act. This claim of the company has been allowed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. The argument of the Revenue in this regard is that the income received by the assessee-company from its investment in the UTI has been declared by the company itself as an "income from other sources" which head of income is different from income from "profits and gains of business or profession" and under section 32AB, income from business alone is entitled for the benefit of that section. The assessee contends that its income from sale and purchase of units of the UTI is part of its regular business and that it has held these units as stock-in-trade and has been doing the business of buying and selling the same. The assessee also contends that its income from this business of investment in the un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose businesses which fall under business enumerated in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 32AB. Therefore, there is no doubt that the business of the assessee-company is an eligible business. The fact that it is shown under different head of income would not deprive the company of its benefit under section 32AB so long as it is held that the investment in the units of the UTI by the assessee-company is in the course of its "eligible business". Therefore, in our opinion, the dividend income earned by the assessee-company from its investment in the UTI should be included in computing the profits of eligible business under section 32AB of the Act: 10. It is seen that in the orders of the Tribunal relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee including the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case the emphasis has been placed on the Profit and Loss Account as drawn up by the assessee purporting to be in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd., while similar arguments in respect of computation of income under section 115J have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
