2003 (10) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1961 (for short, "the Act") is directed against the order dated September 26, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for brevity, the "CIT (Appeals)") were allowed and the claim of the assessee rejected. According to learned counsel for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the provisions of section 80HHC of the Act and application thereof to the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in holding that the claim for deduction in respect of income from FDRs was not sustainable despite contrary and consistent view having been expressed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd. [1991] 190 ITR 259 and CIT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it is clear that no such plea was raised before the Tribunal and, therefore, we are not allowing the assessee to raise this plea for the first time before us. In any case, the Board's circular is only an instruction issued to the income-tax authorities not to file appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 1,00,000. The Tribunal is not bound by any such instruction and once the Department file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irmed the finding of the Assessing Officer. Since the property had been leased out to the sister concern and the assessee was receiving rent there from, the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal were right in holding that the income received by way of rent, could not be treated as "business income" particularly when leasing out of such properties was not the business of the assessee. This is....