2012 (9) TMI 1056

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred in allowing business expenses of Rs. 5,44,107/- even though there was no business in existence during the year as the assessee was debarred by SEBI to carry out business activities vide order dated 11.04.2001. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding interest from fixed deposits of Rs. 29,89,157/- and miscellaneous income of Rs. 2,880/- as business income instead of "income from other sources" without considering the fact that there was no business in existence during the year and the assessee had himself shown them as "Other Income". 2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Although the Special Counsel of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ief to the assessee on this issue. Ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal is accordingly dismissed. 3. As regards ground No.2, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the head of income under which interest and miscellaneous income is assessable to tax in the hands of the assessee, is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the cases of various sister concerns of the assessee company belonging to the same group. In one of such decision rendered in the case of M/s Classic Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 191/Mum/2008 and ITA No. 1135/Mum/2008 dated 19-11-2010 ) for assessment year 2002-03 and 2003- 04, the Tribunal has decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee for the followin....