TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f convenience. 2. Since the issue involved is identical in all the three appeals, we reproduce the ground of appeal from assessment year 2001-02 i.e. in I.T.A. No. 3361/Del/2009. "The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and facts iof the case in treating interest income of Rs.3,28,153/- as income earned from other sources and not as income earned from business and profession which is unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law." 3. In the remaining two years, the ground raised by the assessee are identical except the difference in amount. 4. Brief facts of the case are that It is noted by the Assessing Officer on page No.1 of the assessment order for assessment year 2001-02 that the assessee company was incorpora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Ramapur Timber and Turnery Co. Ltd. as reported in 129 ITR 58 (Alld.). He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Karanpura Collieries Ltd. as reported in 201 ITR 498 (Cal.) and of Hon'ble Bombay high Court rendered in the case of Chinai and Co. Ltd. v. CIT as reported in 206 ITR 616 (Bom.). The Ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow expenses incurred on account of audit fees, filing fees, general charges, office maintenance, postage and telegram, printing and stationery and professional charges in addition to deduction already allowed by the Assessing Officer on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the business of money lending. It was also submitted that the assessee company is not registered with RBI as a NBFC. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements as under:- a) CIT v. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd. 190 ITR 259 (Bom.). b) CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. 243 ITR 2 (SC). c) S.K. AR Somasundaram Chettiar v. CIT 47 ITR 336 (Mad.). d) General Corporation Ltd. v CIT 3 ITR 350 (Mad.). e) ITO v. Dwarka Rakha Chit Funds (P) Ltd. 20 ITD 439 (Mad.). f) Karanpura Collories Ltd. v. ITO 30 TTJ Cal. 548. 6. As against this, Ld DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. Regarding various judgments cited by Ld AR of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income was earned by the assessee in that case on delayed receipts of installments. In that case some interest was received on idle funds and fixed deposits also but the assessee was engaged in that case in a business of builders and idle amounts were deposited with banks and given on loans on temporary basis and under these facts, it was held by the Tribunal in that case that the entire interest sprang from business activity and not out of any independent activity. In the present case, the interest income has been earned by the assessee from independent activity of advancing of loans and it did not sprang from any business activity and hence this judgment is not applicable in the present case. 10. In the case of CIT v. Karnal Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred expenditure with a view to resume production. Under these facts, it was held that the business has not stopped where the assessee started prospecting to find out whether the business could be carried on and incurred expenditure in order to resume production. In the present case, the facts are different and hence this judgment is also not applicable in the present case. 11. Now, we consider the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of Dwarka Rakha Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this case, the assessee company was under liquidation and the official liquidator earned interest on surplus funds kept into bank during intervening period after realization from customers and debtors till the same was paid to creditors. In this proce....