2016 (3) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r 1992-93. 2. The appeal was admitted by the Court vide order dated.31/01/2005 on the following substantial questions of law:- "1.Whether the ITAT was justified in having restored the order of the AO even though the ground raised in the Memo of Revenue's Appeal claimed a relief only to the extent of allowability of 80 HHC in respect of the interest income? 2.Whether the ITAT was justified in having taken the view that interest earned by the appellant from utilization of excess/idle funds was taxable as an income under the head 'Income from other sources'." 3. This case was one of the cases which was taken up by the Larger Bench of this Court in lead case of M/s Reliance Trading Corporation Vs. ITO, Jaipur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d to allow claim of the assessee that it had large number of transactions and it was continuous activity and thus held that it is in the nature of business income. 6. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal who reversed the finding of the CIT(A) taking into consideration the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Murli Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT :(1987) 167 ITR 368; CIT Vs. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation :(1995) 211 ITR 597 (Raj.) and other judgments, and came to the conclusion that it is nothing else except that the idle funds were lying which has been advanced to various concerns and it had no direct nexus with the export business. 7. Ld. counsel for the appellant contended that there was a regularity of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is not admissible on the interest earned by such exporters. It would be relevant to quote para 31 of the judgment (Vimal Chand Surana : supra) :- "The Larger Bench of this court has taken into consideration the judgment of CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra) which by and large has touched the controversy in hand and the said judgment of Delhi High Court has taken into consideration the fact about deduction under Section 80HHC of allowing a claim similar to the present controversy, and after examining the controversy has come to the conclusion that the issue has been considered taking into note the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ....