9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l refinery and petrochemicals, the main business for which the company was set up ?" A few basic facts may now be noted. The assessee-company commenced its business during the assessment year 1980-81 and the reference application relates to the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80. The company was incorporated on February 20, 1974. Being a Government of India undertaking the assessing authority noted that the company had not started its business operation as it was under construction stage. Referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in CWT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 478 in the computation of income, the Assessing Officer included the income from interest in addition to the income from house property. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment in Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s case [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC) was applicable to the facts of the case as held in a similar situation by a Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arasan Alluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1982] 1 ITD 10 (Mad). The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the appeal preferred by the Revenue and accordingly-dismissed the same. The question as set forth above has now been referred for this court's opinion. Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, contended whether a particular receipt is of the nature of income is not a question raised before this court. It was further contended that Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s case [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC) has been explained and distinguished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riding title. The assessee was entirely at liberty to deal with the interest amount as he liked. The application of the income for payment of interest-could not affect its taxability in any way." Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, placing reliance on the following judgments : (1) CIT (Addl.) v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 134 (Delhi) ; (2) CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (No. 1) [1988] 170 ITR 522 (Patna) ; (3) CIT v. Nagarjuna Steels Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 663 (AP) ; (4) CIT v. Electrochem Orissa Ltd. [1995] 211 ITR 552 (Orissa) ; and (5) CIT v. Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 489 (Bom), contended that the view taken by the Tribunal in the face of these authorities was a justifiable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
