2025 (4) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pratik Poddar a/w Ms Rajnandini Shukla. P.C. (PER JITENDRA JAIN, J):- 1. This appeal is instituted by the Appellant-Revenue challenging the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by the co-ordinate bench on 20 June 2019 on following substantial question of law. "(b) Whether in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fficer in para 42 of its order. On an appeal of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer and the DRP and directed the Assessing Officer to grant the deduction on the interest income. The Tribunal has discussed this issue in Paragraph 79 and 86. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has not given any reason ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stitutes eligible income of business of the undertaking. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue and the Respondent-Assessee. 7. In our view, the Tribunal has not given any reason before coming to the conclusion that the interest income constitutes income derived from the business of the eligible undertaking. The Tribunal has merely reproduced the extracts of Karnataka Hig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sons of the Tribunal in its order. 9. Mr. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari (supra) for the submission that the Tribunal ought to have given its reasons, moreso when the Tribunal is reversing the orders of the DRP and the Assessing Officer. 10. In our view, in the absence ....