TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case. 3. Heard both parties and persued the material available on record. We find the issue raised by the Revenue is covered by the consolidated order of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier years i.e. 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13, which is placed on record. We find the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal considering the order for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 05.04.2017 in assessee's own case, wherein, it was held that the business of the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. The relevant portion at Para No.10 & 11 of the consolidated order for A.Ys. 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 is reproduced hereinbelow: 10. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the ld. representatives of both the sides have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce bran, soya oil, maize. We are of the view that the issue in the Revenue's appeal is squarely covered against the revenue by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier years which was based on the decision rendered in the case of Amrit Feeds (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case, the finding of Id, CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in all the appeals on this issue are dismissed". 11. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as the material facts relevant thereto are similar to A.Y. 2010-11, we respectfully follow the order of the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt case, interest income was offered by the assessee to tax as business income and even the interest expenditure was also claimed under the same head as business expenditure. As regards the case of Asian Cement Industries -vs.- ITAT (supra) cited by the ld. D.R., it is observed that even though the issue relating to the netting off interest was raised as question no. 3, the same apparently was not decided by the Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court specifically by giving any finding or conclusion. On the other hand, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Warren Tea Limited (supra) relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order has upheld the principle of netting off of interest income against interest expenditure and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention was made before the CTI(A) that the assessee has made investments in group companies which were made for strategic business purposes, the investment did not yield any exempt income during the year and disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the purpose u/s 14A is not maintainable. The CIT(A) considering the said submissions and by placing reliance orders of ITAT in ITA No.443/kol/2013 in the case of Binani Industries Ltd. and held that no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted where the investments are made in associate and subsidiary companies for strategic business purposes and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for reasons stated as under: "I have considered the findings of the A.O and the written submission....