So Far As Claim Under Section 80Hhd Pertainingto The Very Same Assessee An Issue Came Up Before This Courtwhich Went Against The Appellant/Assessee As Per The D v. Deputy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/19TH POUSHA, 1935 ITA.No. 12 of 2013 -------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 376/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 27-07-2012 ............. APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT : ------------------------------------------ M/S.HOTEL & ALLIED PVT.LTD C/O CSINO HOTEL W/ISLAND, COCHIN-3. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT :------------------------------------------------- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A. No. 12 OF 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9[th] day of January, 2014 Manjula Chellur, C.J. JUDGMENT It is not in dispute that the appellant assessee is a company engaged in Hotel business in different units atKumarakam, Cochin and Bangaram Islands. The assessmentyear in question is 1997-98. Before the assessing officerseveral deductions were claimed. The controversy before usonly pertains to `1,95,243/- as income from other sources,deductions alleged to have been wrongly worked out underSection 80HHD by taking all other units together and so also asum of `23,350/- was levied as interest under Section 234C ofthe Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant isbefore us challenging the orders of the appellate Tribunal. 2. So far as claim under Section 80HHD pertainingto the very same assessee an issue came up before this Courtwhich went against the appellant/assessee as per the decisionof this Court in Hotel & Allied Trades Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [(2007) 294 ITR 67 (Ker.)]. ITA No. 12 of 2013 Placing reliance on the same, Tribunal rejected the claim of theassessee. It is not in dispute that the earlier judgment of thisCourt is pending consideration in Civil Appeal before the ApexCourt. However, no interim order of any nature is granted,though it is admitted that the appeal is of the year 2010.Therefore there is no irregularity or illegality so far as theTribunal placing reliance on the earlier decision of this Court. 3. Then coming to the levy of interest under Section234C, in the latest decision of the Apex Court in JointCommissioner of Income Tax v. Rolta India Ltd.[(2011)330 ITR 470(SC)], the controversy is concluded opining thatinterest can be charged on the tax calculated on book profitunder Section 115JA(1) etc. 4. Then coming to the income from other sources withregard to `1,95,243/-, the Tribunal was justified in saying, in thelight of special and specific provision under Section 56 of theIncome Tax Act, the interest from bank and other dividends needto be assessed only as income from other sources and not the ITA No. 12 of 2013 -:3:- business income of the appellant/assessee. So far asdisallowance of club expenses, the matter is remanded back tothe assessing officer to ascertain whether it was paid towardsmembership fee or otherwise. The Tribunal has gone into each and every controversyraised properly, taking into account the material on record andalso law applicable therein. We do not find any good ground tointerfere, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. A.M. Shaffique, Judge. ttb/09/01