Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 2716 2011 SLD 2716 (2011) 335 ITR 472
Bombay High Court

S.B. DESHMUKH AND F.M. REIS, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Income Tax , Bangalore

v.

Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Exporters - Assessment year 1992-93 - Whether where Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, on basis of evidence on record, had recorded finding that interest income received by assessee-company from bank and on inter-corporate deposits was part of business profit, such income could not be excluded from business profit while calculating deduction under section 80HHC - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-company filed its return claiming deduction under section 80HHC. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment whereby the interest income declared by the assessee as income from the business was assessed as income from other sources under section 56(2) and, accordingly, was excluded from the business profit while calculating deduction under section 80HHC. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to assess the interest from the banks and interest on inter-corporate deposits as income from the business and to allow deduction under section 80HHC in respect of said income. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On the revenue's appeal to the High Court : HELD The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that though the main object of the assessee company was to extract iron ore and export the same, yet it was not barred from carrying on activity like the instant one, i.e., business of placing various deposits and earning interest from the same. The activity carried on could be definitely held as business activity and, hence, any income earned therefrom was to be taxed as business income only. That showed that the authorities below, on the basis of the evidence on record, had held that the activity carried out by the assessee was a part of its business activity. That conclusion of the fact could not be interfered with by the Court in an appeal under section 260A. In any event, the revenue had failed to advance any submission to the effect that the said findings of the fact were contrary to the evidence on record or that the same were in any way perverse. [Para 6] In the instant case, the authorities below had held that the income from the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492