9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned interest income of Rs. 18,00,000 on IDBI Bonds. Assessee returned such income under the head "income from other sources". However, subsequently, the assessee raised the claim and requested the AO to treat the interest income from IDBI Bonds as business income. However, the AO held such income to be income from other sources. On appeal, the CIT(A) directed to assess the interest income as business income. The Revenue is in appeal before us. While relying on the decision reported as CIT vs. Govinda Choudhury Sons (1994) 116 CTR (SC) 61 : (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC), the learned Departmental Representative argued that the investment in IDBI Bonds was not the business of the assessee. So the interest income has been rightly taxed under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t make the interest income earned by the assessee as business income. We also do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned counsel to the effect that because the sale consideration of the commercial asset was invested into IDBI Bond, the income will partake the character of business income. If somebody goes by the logic of the counsel then if an assessee purchases house property from business income and gives the same on rent, the rent will partake the character of business income. But in law it is not so. We, therefore, restore the order of the AO by holding that the interest earned on the IDBI Bonds was taxable under the head "income from other sources". The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is allowed. 6. In ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The only ground for disallowing the travelling expenses was that as the flour mill has been closed, the question of any travelling in connection with that business did not arise. But while doing so, the AO omitted to consider the fact that the assessee had purchased another flour mill and was running the same. Thus, the visit/travelling by the partner was in connection with business carried on by the assessee and the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the expenditure on such travelling. While upholding his finding, we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 9. In ground No. 3, the deletion of the disallowance on personal user of the car has been challenged. 10. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the car expenses ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
