9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of the contention before the authorities that the gross interest income ought to be considered as business income. It was treated by the authorities as income from other sources. The ends of justice would be met by permitting the appellant to raise this contention before the Tribunal. It is only for this limited purpose that the appeal on this question is remitted to the Tribunal. It is open to the Tribunal to consider the issue itself or to remit it further. The appeal is accordingly disposed of so far as question above is concerned. - ITA-40-2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 7-12-2016 - MR. S.J. VAZIFDAR AND MR. DEEPAK SIBAL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. M.R. Sharma, Advocate For The Respondent : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been even distinguished while passing the order appealed against? (iv) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has grossly erred in passing the order appealed against without distinguishing the earlier order of its co-equal bench dated 21.03.2009 with regard to the gross interest income of ₹ 15,11,996/- as income from other sources instead of business income received by the appellant as interest on the loans advanced to its employees for housing and conveyance as a condition precedent of its service rules more so when it has been treated as business income in the earlier 25 years? (v) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gement dated 11.11.2016 in ITA-638-2009 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs M/s Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. 6. Question (vi) is covered against the appellant by virtue of our order and judgement passed today in ITA-158-2016 titled as The Punjab State Cooperative Federation of House Building Societies Ltd., Chandigarh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh and another. 7. Re: Questions (iv) and (v) The appellant does not appear to have claimed the deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act (in short the Act) in view of the contention before the authorities that the gross interest income ought to be considered as business income. It was treated by the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
