TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hai and Co. v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 192, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in interfering with the assessment of interest income under the head 'Other sources'? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in directing the interest income to be assessed under different heads and does the distinction drawn by the Tribunal have any difference in the matter of assessment of interest income? 3. (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether in working out the profit derived in the industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee the profit earned from the sale of the kernels processed in the factories of third parties is to be included for the purpose of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnels processed in the factories belonging to third parties. He accordingly computed the deduction under section 80HH at Rs. 10,38,288 as against the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 26,66,680. The assessee being aggrieved by the said order filed I appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by his order dated April 3, 1996, confirmed the assessment and dismissed the appeal. In second appeal by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that the matter has to be remitted to the Assessing Officer to ascertain as to whether there was any activity carried on by the assessee in respect of the quantity of 17,243 bags which were processed in the factories belonging to third parties. Further direction in tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t earlier judgments of this court on this point were also considered. Regarding question No.3 it is submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment of this court in CIT v. Indian Resins and Polymers [1999] 235 ITR 5. Sri P. Balachandran, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, also submits that the questions on which notice is issued are covered by the decisions of this court as submitted by senior counsel for the Revenue. We have also perused the two judgments. We find that questions Nos. 1 and 2 on which notice is issued in this appeal are covered by the judgment dated November 8, 2002, in I.T.A. No. 291 of 2002 (K. Ravindranathan Nair v. Deputy CIT (Asstt.) [2003] 262 ITR 669), where relying on earlier decisions of this court w....