2008 (8) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... E. B. for supply of H. T. electricity." 2. We have heard Mr. Sandesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant assessee and Mr. Sanjai Lal, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue. 3. Mr. Sandesh Jain, learned counsel for the assessee-applicant, submitted that he has instructions to withdraw the reference. He has commended us to the decision rendered in Gajadhar Prasad Nathu Lal v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 615 (MP), wherein the learned Chief Justice, speaking for the court after referring to the decision rendered in M. M. Ispahani Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax [1955] 27 ITR 188 (Cal), Arisetty Butchanna v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 703 (AP) and Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 16 (Cal), expressed the opinion as under (pag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ous decision which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. 6. K. Ch. Venkatratnam v. CGT [1974] 95 ITR 277, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while dealing with, the reference under section 26(2) of the Gift-tax Act, opined that when an assessee makes a request to withdraw from the reference and says that he is not interested in pursuing the matter, it is left to the High Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, either to accede to the request and decide not to answer the reference or to proceed to answer the reference in spite of such request. 7. Similar view was expressed in State of Gujarat v. Premier Auto Electricals Ltd. [1982] 51 STC 115 (Guj). 8. In the case at hand, while Mr. Sandesh Jain, learned counsel has expres....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellate authority allowed the appeal of the assessee in respect of certain other items. 11. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), an appeal was preferred by the Revenue and the assessee also preferred an appeal. Both the appeals were heard analogously by the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee in part. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application referring two questions to this court. Before the Tribunal question No. 2 was not pressed and, hence, a singular question has been referred to this court. 12. From the statement of facts it is quite clear that the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the interest drawn from the deposits would not be included under sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of non-payment. And rent is not land within the meaning of the definition.' This definition was approved and reiterated in 1955 by a Constitution Bench of this court in the decision of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 1 (SC) at page 7. It is clear, therefore, that the words 'derived from' in section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be understood as something which has direct or immediate nexus with the appellant's industrial undertaking. Although electricity may be required for the purposes of the industrial undertaking, the deposit required for its supply is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking. The derivation of profits on the deposit made with the Electricity Board cannot be said to flow directly....