M/s Bank Note Paper Mill India Private Limited , Mysore V. The Income Tax Officer Circle-1(1)(3), Bangalore

ITA 165/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4812 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G GURUSWAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: G S PRASHANT
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Question of law; Capital receipt; Capital expenditure
• Section: 6; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE S HRI N.V. VASUDEVAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . A. NO S . 165 & 166 /BANG/20 18 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 13 - 14 & 2014 - 15 ) M/S. BANK NOTE PAPER MILL INDI A PVT. LTD., ADMN. BUILDING, PAPER MILL COMPOUND, NOTE MUDRAN NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 003 . APPELLANT. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(3), BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S. PRASHANT, ADVOCATE. R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI G. GURUSWAMY, CIT (D.R) DATE OF H EARING : 17.05.2018. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 23 .05 .201 8 . O R D E R PER SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , A .M . : THE S E ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , BANGALORE DT.31.8.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 13 - 14 & 2014 - 15. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, WE PROCEED TO 2 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 DISPOSE OF BOTH THESE APPEALS VIDE THIS COMMON ORDER. F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, THE FACTS R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 IN ITA NO.165/ BANG /2018 ARE STATED HEREIN . 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 ARE AS UNDER : 3 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS ARE AS UNDER : 3 .1 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN THE BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN PRIVATE LIMITED AND SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. WHICH I S SET UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING, DESIGNING, MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLYING THE CURRENCY PAPER AND BANK 4 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 NOTE PAPER. DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN PROCESS OF SETTING UP OF A PLANT AT MYSORE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING CURRENCY PAPER. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL FROM THE GOVT. OF INDIA A ND RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING UP OF PLANT. THE FUNDS WHICH WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING UP OF A PLANT W ERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK , ON WHICH INTEREST INCOME OF RS.21, 52,81,724 WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE IN TEREST SO EARNED WAS REDUCED FROM PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES ON CONSTRUCTION, ETC. OF THE PLANT. THEREFORE THE INTER E ST INCOME WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. 3.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE AS SESSEE AND PLAC ING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILISERS LTD. VS. CIT 227 ITR 1721 AND BROUGHT TO TAX , THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSE SSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) , WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER HAD CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 4. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF CO - ORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 , THE AUTHOR OF THIS ORDER IS ONE OF US I.E. HON'BLE A.M., IN ITA NO.692/BANG/2015 & C.O. NO.177/BANG/2015 DT.17.3.2017 WHEREIN IN PARA 7 HELD AS UNDER : - 7. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT COMES UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD ON BANK DEPOSITS MADE OUT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY IT, IS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR IT SHOULD GO TO REDUCE CAPITAL COST OF THE PLANT WHICH IS BEING SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. UNDISPUTEDLY, FACTS ARE THAT THE SAID INTEREST INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY ON BANK DEPOSITS MADE OUT O F SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE - COMPANY TO MEET CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR SETTING UP OF ASSESSEE S FACTORY. AS THE FUNDS WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED, THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS WITH BANK ON WHICH ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST. THIS INTEREST INCOME WAS TREATED AS ABATEMENT OF CAPITAL COST OF THE PROJECT/FACTORY BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHEREAS THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND BROUGHT TO TAX PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. (SUPRA). THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DISTINGUISHED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BOKARO STEEL LTD. ((236 ITR 315)(SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMIC ALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE WHERE INTEREST RECEIPT IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR INCIDENTAL TO WORKING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE S PLANT. THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BOKARO STEEL LTD. (SUPRA) WAS FOL LOWED SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K ARNAL CO - OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. (243 ITR 2). AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CITA VS. KARNATAKA STATE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE PROCESSI NG AND EXPORT CORPORATION LTD.(377 ITR 496). IN THAT CASE THE STATE GOVERNMENT CORPORATION EARNED INTEREST ON DEPOSITS TEMPORARILY KEPT OUT OF GRANTS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT WAS TAXABLE OR NOT? THE FACTS ARE THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENT CORPORATIO N EARNED INTEREST DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD ON THE FIXED DEPOSITS TEMPORARILY MADE OUT OF STATE GOVERNMENT GRANTS. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER SUCH INTEREST INCOME WAS TAXABLE OR SHOULD GO TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL COST OF 6 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 THE PRO JECT. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BONGAIGAON REFINARY PETROCHEMICALS LTD. V. CIT (251 ITR 329)(SC), BOKARA STEEL LTD. (SUPRA), AND TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. (SUPR A) AND ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION , (247 ITR 268) AND CIT VS. KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE CORPORATION (284 ITR 582) HELD THAT SUCH INTEREST INCOME WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL COST OF THE PROJECT, IS ON THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: 9. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS A GOVERNM ENT OWNED COMPANY. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, FOR INCREASING THE EXPORT OF HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE, A SUM OF RS. 10.00 CRORES WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE UTILISATION OF THIS GRANT AMOUNT, IT WAS TEMPORARILY KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND THE INTEREST WAS EARNED ON THE SAID AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HAD SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THAT INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSITS OF GRANTS PENDING UTILISATION SHOULD BE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL GRANT OF THE SCHEME AND NOT TO BE TREATED AS 'INCOME OF THE COMPANY'. NO LIBERTY WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY TO MAKE USE OF THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE SAID AMOUNT K EPT IN FIXED DEPOSITS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN TRADING IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, IT HAS NO POWER TO MAKE USE OF THE SAID GRANT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA OTHER THAN FOR A PARTICULAR SCHEME I.E. , THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE DIVERTED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR WHICH IT WAS SANCTIONED AS PER THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23.1.2007. THUS, THE EMPHASIS MADE BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY BEING ENGAGED IN TRADING ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A NODAL AGENCY OF THE STA TE GOVERNMENT AND THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE GRANTS BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT GRANTED AND ON THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON. 10. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN.'S CASE (KUIDC) ( SUPRA ) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT: 'THE MATERIAL ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF CONSTIT UTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ACT AS A NODAL AGENCY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF MEGA - CITY SCHEME WORKED OUT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BOTH THE CENTRAL AND THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE REQUISITE FINANCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAID PROJECT. T HE FUNDS FROM THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS 7 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 WILL FLOW DIRECTLY TO THE SPECIALISED INSTITUTIONS/NODAL AGENCIES AS GRANT AND THE NODAL AGENCY WILL CONSTITUTE A REVOLVING FUND WITH THE HELP OF CENTRAL AND STATE SHARES OUT OF WHICH FINANCE COULD BE PROVIDE D TO VARIOUS AGENCIES SUCH AS WATER, SEWERAGE BOARDS, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, ETC. THE OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A FUND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL ASSETS ON A CONTINUING BASIS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS A NODAL AGENCY FORMED/CREA TED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AS PER THE GUIDELINES; THERE IS NO PROFIT MOTIVE AS THE ENTIRE FUND ENTRUSTED AND THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREFROM ON DEPOSITS IN BANK THOUGH IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE APPLIED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WELFARE OF THE NATION/STATES AS PROVIDED IN THE GUIDELINES; THE WHOLE OF THE FUND BELONGS TO THE STATE EXCHEQUER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CHANNELISE THEM TO THE OBJECTS OF CENTRALLY SPONSORED SCHEME OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR MEGA - CITY OF BANGALORE. FUNDS OF ON E WING OF THE GOVERNMENT IS DISTRIBUTED TO THE OTHER WING OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AS PER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED. THE MONIES SO RECEIVED, TILL IT IS UTILISED, IS PARKED IN A BANK. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ENTIR E MONEY IN QUESTION IS RECEIVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHEME WHICH IS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND THE SAID SCHEME IS IMPLEMENTED AS PER THE GUIDELINES OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ACTING AS A NODAL AGENCY OF CENTRAL GOVER NMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PROJECTS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS OR ACTIVITIES OF ITS OWN WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE SCHEME IN QUESTION. THE UNUTILISED MONEY, DURING WHICH THE PROJECT COULD NOT BE FUL LY IMPLEMENTED, IS DEPOSITED IN A BANK TO EARN INTEREST. THAT INTEREST EARNED IS ALSO AGAIN UTILISED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEGA - CITY SCHEME WHICH IS ALSO PERMITTED UNDER THE SCHEME. THEREFORE, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY P REVIOUS YEAR THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON BANK DEPOSITS CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INTEREST IS EARNED OUT OF THE MONEY GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MEGA - CITY SCHEME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY ERROR IN THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME EARNED BY WAY OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO WHICH IS AFFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS PURELY A QUESTI ON OF FACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION ITSELF.' 11. IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD.'S CASE ( SUPRA ), THE APEX COURT H AS HELD THAT: 8 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 'THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS MATTER. THE COMPANY, IN THIS CASE, IS AT LIBERTY TO USE THE INTEREST INCOME AS IT LIKES. IT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO UTILISE THIS INTEREST INCOME TO REDUCE ITS LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST TO ITS CREDITORS. IT C AN RE - INVEST THE INTEREST INCOME IN LAND OR SHARE, IT CAN PURCHASE SECURITIES, IT CAN BUY HOUSE PROPERTY, IT CAN ALSO SET UP ANOTHER LINE OF BUSINESS, IT MAY EVEN PAY DIVIDENDS OUT OF THIS INCOME TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS'. 12. IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA POWER COR PN. ( SUPRA ), THE APEX COURT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF BOKARO STEEL LTD'S CASE ( SUPRA ) HAS HELD THAT 'INTEREST RECEIPTS AND HIRE CHARGES FROM CONTRACTORS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPTS'. 13. IN THE CASE OF BONGAIGAON REFINARY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD., V . CIT [2001] 251 ITR 329/119 TAXMAN 488 THE APEX COURT CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS LTD.'S CASE ( SUPRA ) AND BOKARO STEEL LTD.'S CASE ( SUPRA ) H AS HELD THAT IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD.'S CASE, THE QUESTION RELATED WAS WITH THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE COMPANY DURING ITS FORMATIVE PERIOD BY INVESTMENTS WHILE IN BOKARO STEEL LTD.'S CASE ( SUPRA ), IT IS SO CONFINED AND DID NOT APPLY WHERE THE RECEIPTS WERE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR WERE INCIDENTAL TO THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S PLANT. ACCORDINGLY, APPLYING THE LAW ENUNCIATED IN BOKARO STEEL LIMITED CASE ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 14. IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CASE ON HAND. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE GRANT OF RS 10.00 CRORES FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOR A PARTICULAR PROJECT I.E. , FOR IMPROVEMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO PROMOTE EXPORT OF HORTICULTURAL PROD UCE. BEFORE THE SAID GRANT WAS UTILIZED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE IT WAS PARKED IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND THE INTEREST WAS EARNED AND BY THE SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS FURTHER MADE CLEAR THAT THE STATE GOV ERNMENT HAS CATEGORICALLY SPECIFIED THAT ANY INTEREST EARNED ON THOSE GRANTS ORIGINALLY GRANTED HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ADDITIONAL GRANT AND NOT AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. 15. AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT, IN BONGAIGAON REFINARY & PETROCHEMICA LS LTD.'S CASE, ( SUPRA ), IN TUTICORIN'S CASE, THE INVESTMENT IN DEPOSITS WAS MADE BY THE COMPANY DURING ITS FORMATIVE PERIOD BY INVESTMENTS AND IN BOKARO STEELS LTD.'S CASE ( SUPRA ) THE INEXTRICABLE LINK BETWEEN THE INTEREST EARNED AND THE SET UP OF THE PLA NT WAS ESTABLISHED. THUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT AN INVESTMENT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE SETTING UP OF THE PROJECT BUT THIS IS THE UNUTILIZED INCOME PARKED IN FIXED DEPOSITS FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD AND INEXTRICABLE LINK FOR THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE GRANTS AND THE 9 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 ORIGINAL GRANT MADE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP A PROJECT IS ESTABLISHED AS IN BOKARO STEEL CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIOS OF THE DECISIONS LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASES, WE HOLD THAT EVEN IN THE PRES ENT CASE ALSO, INTEREST EARNED SHOULD ONLY GO TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL COST OF THE PROJECT TO BE SET UP BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANY AND IT SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX, AS THE INTEREST IS EARNED ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO DIFFER WITH DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE FACT THAT WHETHER THE DEPOSITS ARE SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM HAS NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE AS TH E ISSUE IS RE QUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECT OF PLACING THE DEPOSITS. T HE CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECTS BEHIND PLACING THE DEPOSITS, THE DECISION DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 3RD DAY OF MAY, 201 8 . SD/ - (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DT. .05.2018. *REDDY GP 10 IT A NO S . 165 & 166/ BANG/201 8 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 4 CIT(A) 2 RESPONDENT 5 DR. ITAT, BANGALORE 3 CIT 6 GUARD FILE SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.