2020 (10) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income earned from the fixed deposits is to be treated under the head 'income from other source' and not business income ? ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding that the interest received by the appellant is income on commercial principles and not allowing the same to be netted off against the capital work in progress ? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 62,77,671/- under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. 5. Aggrieved by such addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai-34 [for brevity, the CIT(A)]. In the grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer ought to have seen that the fixed deposits were made in the pre-operative period and hence, the same were to be considered as part of the project cost and that the Assessing Officer erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (1997) 227 ITR 172]. Further, the assessee faulted the Assessing Officer for relying upon the decision of this C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....herefore, it had to be considered as part of the project cost. Thus, the plea raised before us for the first time appears to be contrary to the factual position as pleaded by the assessee themselves. Thus, the said contention raised by the assessee is not acceptable. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision rendered by us in the case of Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [reported in (2019) 416 ITR 343]. 10. This decision is relied upon in support of the submission that the assessee before us commenced business. The facts in the decision rendered by us in the case of Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P.) Ltd., are totally different from the facts before us. In the said case, the assessee,....