Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Eastman Industries, Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: February 9, 2010 ITA No. 11 of 2010(A.Y. 2005-06) Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Versus M/s Eastman Industries, Ludhiana …Appellant …Respondent ITA No. 12 of 2010(A.Y. 2000-01) Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Versus M/s Eastman Industries, Ludhiana …Appellant …Respondent ITA No. 13 of 2010(A.Y. 2002-03) Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Versus M/s Eastman Industries, Ludhiana …Appellant …Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMARHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate,for Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate,for the appellant.for Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate,for the appellant. 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported inthe Digest?the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. By this order we propose to dispose of ITA Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of2010, filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for brevity, ‘the Act’) against the common order dated 27.2.2009, passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity,‘the Tribunal’), in ITA Nos. 825, 826 & 832/Chd/2008, in respect of theAssessment Years 2000-01, 2005-06 & 2002-03. In ITA Nos. 11 and 12 of 2010, the following question of law has been sought to be raised fordetermination of this Court:- “Whether on the facts and in law, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was justified in treating the ‘interest income’ earned frommoney lending as ‘business income’ whereas the same wasassessed under the head ‘income from other sources’?Tribunal was justified in treating the ‘interest income’ earned frommoney lending as ‘business income’ whereas the same wasassessed under the head ‘income from other sources’? However, in ITA No. 13 of 2010 besides the above, the followingadditional question of law has also been raised:- “Whether on the facts and in law, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 33,87,910/-and Rs. 1,24,132/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowingthe claim of bad debts written off which were declared on accrualbasis in earlier assessment years and deduction under Section80HHC was claimed on the same in the respective years, keeping inview the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?The matter is no longer res integra. The revenue-appellant has alsofiled ITA No. 2 of 2010 against the order of the Tribunal dated 27.2.2009,passed in ITA No. 498/Chandi/2008, in respect of the Assessment Year 2004-05, in the case of same assessee-respondent raising the aforementionedquestions of law. The said appeal came up for our consideration on 8.2.2010and we repelled the contention raised by the revenue-appellant. The facts andthe questions of law sought to be raised in present appeals are the same as thatof ITA No. 2 of 2010. Accordingly, for the sake of consistency we adopt thesame reasoning and dispose of the present appeals in terms of our order dated8.2.2010 passed in ITA No. 2 of 2010. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of all the appeals. (M.M. KUMAR)JUDGE February 9, 2010Pkapoor (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE