9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness, is taxable as Business income and is excluded from Section 56 of the Act, in "Income from Other Sources" we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should consider the issue again in view of the later decisions of this Court viz., M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2018 (4) TMI 715 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal to decide the said issue afresh on merits in view of the latest decisions of this Court . - T.C.(A).Nos.998, 999 and 1000 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2019 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan For the Appellant : Mr.R.Kumar for T.N.Seethuaraman For the Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthikumar for K.G.Usha Rani Sr.Standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this issue stands adjudicated against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Dollar Apparels vs.ITO [2007] 294 ITR 484. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court has held that income earned from bank deposits cannot be considered as income from export. There exists no nexus between the interest income and export earning. Respectfully following the precedent, we decide this issue also in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed. 2. These Appeals were admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.10.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the Assessee had not raised the question of validity of proceedings under Section 147 of the Act before the learned CIT (Appeals) as is clear from the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) in its order dated 18.06.2007 that The order of the ITO Ward, I(3) TPR is erroneous in law as unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of our appellant's case . He submitted that this ground raised by the CIT (Appeals) cannot be construed as challenging the jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act initiated on the basis of the Audit Objection, as is sought to be contended before this Court now. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing the order dated 29.01.2009 had wrongly passed the order agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
