2007 (1) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an, Ms. Meera Bhatia and Ms. Adnansha Sharma ORDER 1. At the hearing on 22-5-2006, at the first hearing of ITA No. 756/2006 (AY 1997-98) this Court framed the following substantial question of law for determination : "Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that the interest amount of Rs. 65,03,390 earned by the assessee on FDRs was a business income and would qualify for relief under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed in the negative and in favour of the Department. 4. However, one other plea of Dr. Narayanan requires to be dealt with. This was on the principle of consistency. It is stated that the issue first arose in the assessment year 1990-91, when in the absence of clause (baa) the interest income could be claimed as business income. The CIT(A) had overruled the Assessing Officer and held in favour o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h interest income had to be included in the profit of business under Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC. For the assessment year 1998-99 the Assessing Officer once again held that interest income was not business income. This was upheld by the CIT(A). However the ITAT by the impugned order dated 20-3-2006 allowed the assessee's appeal on the basis of the earlier orders of the Tribunal, on the prin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deduction under Explanation (baa). That is not possible. As has been explained hereinabove, once a receipt is treated as income from other sources it goes out entirely from the ambit of section 80HHC. In the facts of the present case, it must be held that the approach of the Department in the years previous to assessment year 1997-98 was not in consonance with the law as explained in our judgment ....