Ita/58/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm v. Kerala State Industrial Development

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 I.T.A.No. 58 of 2008 -------------------------------- ORDER DATED 22.4.2003 IN ITA.346/COCH/1999 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN .................... APPELLANT/APELLANT:- ---------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (TAXES) & SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- I.T.A.No.58 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11[th] day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Revenue being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A.No.346 of 1999 dated22.4.2003 for the assessment year 1993-94 is before us in this appeal. 2. The Tribunal while disposing of the Revenue's appeal,had merely followed the judgment of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.245 of 1999dated 7.12.2002. That appeal pertains of the assessment year 1996-97. 3. The Revenue being aggrieved by the orders passed inI.T.A.No.245 of 1999 dated 7.12.2002 was before this Court inI.T.A.No.32 of 2003. 4. In the aforesaid appeal, the Revenue has raised thefollowing questions of law for our consideration and decision. It is asunder: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case and also in the absence of a finding that themethod adopted by the Assessing Officer invoking section145 of the Act is not reasonable, the Tribunal is justifiedin interfering with the method of treatment given tointerest receipts as well as interest payments by theAssessing Officer? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the method of treatment given to interest receiptsand payments by the assessee, the direction given by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and theconfirmation of the same by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal are in accordance with law and accountancypractice? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the provision made by the assessee for bad tradeinvestments is an allowable deduction? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of intereston interest tax?” 5. The very same issues raised in the aforesaid appeal israised and canvassed in this appeal also. 6. It is brought to our notice by Sri.George K.George, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, that, this Court hasdisposed of I.T.A.No.32 of 2003 by its orders dated 23.6.2008 and in thathas answered the questions of law framed by the Revenue against theRevenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. The issues involved in this appeal, as we have already noticed, are identical with the issues raised and decided by this Court inI.T.A.No.32 of 2003 dated 23.6.2008. 8. The revenue is not in a position to convince, why weshould not follow the view taken by this Court in ITA No.32/2003. 9. In view of the above, respectfully following observationsmade in the aforesaid decision, this appeal is also disposed of in the sameterms, observations, conditions and directions. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE vns/dk (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE