M/s. Gujarat Powergen Energy Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax officer, Ward-4(1), Ahmedabad

MA 218/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4572 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S PANWAR
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.218,219,220/AHD/2008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 624,625 AND 626/AHD/2004) ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), AHMEDABAD. V/S M/S. GUJARAT POWERGEN ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, NAVJIVAN BUILDING, OFF. ASHARAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S.S. PANWAR, DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI P.M MEHTA O R D E R PER SHRI. N.S. SAINI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) : THESE ARE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONS OLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31-03-2008. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING ITS ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE HON'BLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED AT THE ADMISSI ON STAGE RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER F OR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE REGARDING NETTING OF INTEREST INCOME WITH INTEREST EXPENDITURE IF THE INCOME IS EARNED FROM BORROWED FUND AND INTEREST IS PAID FROM BORROWED FUNDS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS THAT THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN AS MUCH AS IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS AN D THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT BASED ON PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE -2- RELEVANT FACTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARN ED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE PRESENT YEARS OF APPEAL TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE INTEREST INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND SIMULTANEOUSLY RECORDED A FACT THAT SUC H INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. ON AN APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOTED THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEPOSIT IN BANKS WERE MADE FOR PURPOSES OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OUT OF BUSINESS NECESSITY AND WERE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE RUNNING OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. INTEREST INCOME OF RS.40.23 LAKHS ON MARGIN MONEY/GUARANTY WAS INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND INTE REST RECEIVED ON MARGIN MONEY CAME FROM TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT WHICH THERE WOULD HA VE BEEN NO POSSIBILITY OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE DEPOSITS KEP T WAS NOT A VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR RUNNING THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERED INTO A TRUST AND RETENTION ACCOUNT AGREEMENT (IN SHORT TRRA) EXECUTED BETWEEN ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HSBC BANK AND IDBI. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MOBILIZE AND INVEST FUNDS IN THE WAY AS REQUIRED BY THE LENDERS. THE ASSESSEE W AS ALSO REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM BALANCE AS PER AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN HUGE AMOUNTS OF DEPOSITS WHICH WAS INEXTRICABLY RELATED TO THE SCHEME OF BORROWINGS MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION S HELD THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING TH E GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED HIM TO SET OFF INTEREST PAYMENT ON BORROWED FUNDS A S CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ONLY THE NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM ELIGIBLE PROFIT. THE ORDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND 2001-02 HAVE BEEN MADE ON SIMILAR LINES. -3- 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 THE TRIBUNAL RESTOR ED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE NEXUS BETWEEN TH E INTEREST PAID AND INTEREST RECEIVED, WHEREAS, FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE ARS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ALREADY VER IFIED THE FACTS AND RECORDED HIS FINDINGS SPECIFICALLY ON THE NEXUS OF INTEREST PAID AND RECEIVED. THEREFORE, IGNORING THE CORRECT FACTUAL POSITION AND CONTENTIO NS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMME DIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM REC ORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE IT ACT AND REQUIRED RECTIFICA TION BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SUCH AMENDMENT OF THE T RIBUNALS ORDER WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF ITS EARLIER ORDER AND WOULD BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2). IF A MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM RECORD, EVEN RECALLING OF ORDER AND PASSING A FRESH ORDER IS PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 254(2) AS WA S HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT 295 ITR 466 (SC). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAXMI ELECTRONIC CORPORATION VS. CIT 188 ITR 398 AND THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHAMPA LAL CHOPRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 257 ITR 74 (RAJ) AND CIT VS. RAMESH CHAND MODI 249 ITR 323 (RAJ.). IN THE BACKDROP OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE RE CTIFIED. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESS EE AND ARGUED THAT NO GRIEVANCE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO ALLOW NETTING OF INTEREST INCOME IF INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED FROM T HE BORROWED FUNDS AND INTEREST IS -4- PAID FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DE CISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE RELEVANT ISSUES HAS HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET INTE REST DEBIT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AFTER DEDUCTING INTEREST INCOME EARN ED FROM THE DEPOSIT WITH THE BANKS ETC. WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN KEPT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE WORKING CAPITAL LOAN AND LONG TERM LOAN . THE A O HAS REDUCED THE GROSS AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIPT FROM T HE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABL E TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IA. THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.7 06/AHD/2002 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 06-10-2006 THE TRIBUNAL HA S RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A O TO EXAMINE THE NETTIN G OFF OF THE INTEREST INCOME WITH THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHERE IT IS SH OWN THAT THEY ARE INTRICATELY CONNECTED WITH THE RUNNING OF THE INDUS TRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHICH HELD THAT WHER E INCOME EARNED IS FROM BORROWED FUNDS, INTEREST IS PAID FROM BORROWED FUNDS THEN NETTING OFF IS TO BE GIVEN. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE A O TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION O F THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND TO ALLOW NETTING OFF OF INTEREST INC OME IF THE INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS AND INTERE ST IS PAID FROM BORROWED FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CITED CERTAIN LEGAL DECISIONS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT WH EN THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS AUTH ORITY TO RECTIFY THE SAID ORDER AND FOR THAT PURPOSE ALSO TO RECALL THE EARLIER ORDER. WE FIND THAT THERE CAN BE NO QUARREL WITH THE ABOVE PROPOSITION BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED OP INION, POWERS UNDER SECTION -5- 254(2) CAN BE EXERCISED TO RECTIFY AN APPARENT ERRO R ONLY AND NOT TO REVIEW THE DECISION TAKEN EARLIER AFTER CONSIDERING OR RELEVAN T FACTS AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS HELD T HAT ONLY THOSE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME CAN ONLY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE INTEREST INCOME FOR COMPUTING THE NET INCOME DERIVE D FROM IT. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THIS ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND THE REFORE, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THIS DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 998-99 TO WHICH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT RELATES, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO MMENCED ITS BUSINESS WHEREAS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE W AS DOING BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WERE DIST INGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, THE SA ID DECISION WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THE DIS PUTE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS THAT WHETHER THE GROS S AMOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE HELD AS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AS DONE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OR ONLY THE AMOUNT ARRIVED AT AFT ER DEDUCTING ENTIRE INTEREST EXPENDITURE FROM THE GROSS INTEREST AND THE NET INT EREST INCOME ONLY IS TO BE HELD AS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AS HELD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. VS. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278(S C), IT IS UNDISPUTABLE THAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON DESPOT DO NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AS SUCH INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE HELD AS DERIVED F ROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND IT IS IMMATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE THAT WHAT WAS THE OBJECT OF MAKING DEPOSIT AND -6- WHETHER THE INDUSTRY COULD HAVE RUN WITHOUT SUCH DE POSIT OR NOT. FURTHER, FROM THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERT Y INDIA VS. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC), IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT WHILE CALCULATING T HE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IT HAS TO BE CALCULATED AS I F THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WO RDS, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR MAKING DEPOSITS ON WHICH INTE REST WAS EARNED IS ONLY TO BE IGNORED AND THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ONLY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE HON'BL E HIGH COURT WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT ONLY SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE INCURRE D FOR EARNING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS ARE TO BE NETTED FROM INTEREST INCOME AND ONLY SUCH INTEREST INCOME IS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 9. THE OTHER ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS) HAS CLEARLY RECORDED A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT ENTIRE INTERE ST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INTEREST INCOME THEREFORE, SUCH INTERES T EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INTEREST INCOME FOR DELETING NET INTERE ST INCOME FOR EXCLUDING INTEREST INCOME FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS HELD AS UND ER. 3.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS APPARE NT THAT NETTING OFF OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES OF THE SAME NA TURE HAS TO BE DONE WHILE CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS PROFIT. IN THE APPEL LANT'S CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED A S BUSINESS INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUN DS IS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INTEREST RECEIPT. AS PER THE FACTS BROU GHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. COUNSEL, IT APPEARS THAT ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD LIQUID FUNDS BY WAY OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS, AS A RESU LT OF TRAA IT COULD NOT UTILISE THE SAME FOR REDUCING THE BORROWI NGS. HAD THE APPELLANT BEEN PERMITTED TO UTILISE THE FUNDS IN RE DUCING THE INTEREST LIABILITY, THE INTEREST RECEIVED WOULD ALSO HAD BEE N CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME IS DIRECTLY LINKED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING AND WITH THE INTEREST P AID ON THE BORROWED FUNDS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE PRIN CIPLE ENUNCIATED -7- IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASES, I HOLD THAT THE A.O. W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROF IT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE A.O. IS D IRECTED TO SET OFF THE INTEREST PAYMENT ON BORROWED FUNDS, AS CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AND ONLY THE NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST, IF ANY, SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT. THE APPELLANT WI LL GET RESULTANT RELIEF. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL THE INTER EST PAID IS MORE THAN INTEREST RECEIVED AND THEREFORE THE RESULT WIL L BE THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,83,70,000 ASSESSED BY THE A.O. WILL BE REDUCED TO NIL AND THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF SIMILAR AMOUNT . 10. WE THUS, FIND THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE O UT OF INTEREST INCOME NOT ON THE GROUND THAT BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY UTILISED FOR MAKING DEPOSIT ON WHICH INTER EST WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HE ALLOWED THE SAME BECAUSE IN HIS OPINION, SAM E NATURE OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE CAN BE SET OFF FROM EACH OTHER. THUS, W E FIND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(APPEALS) HAS RECORDED A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIS ED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME IS NOT BORNE OUT OF THE RECORDS. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMS TANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND TO ALLOW NETT ING OFF OF INTEREST INCOME IF THE INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS A ND INTEREST IS PAID FROM BORROWED FUNDS. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE HEREBY DISMI SSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH DAY OF MAY 2010. SD/- SD/- (T.K.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N S SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 14 TH DAY OF APRIL 2010 PARAS# -8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 30.04.2010 -------------- ----- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 30.04.2010 ---- --------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 04.05.2010 ----------- -------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 04.05.2010 ---------- --------- JM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 06.05.2010 -------- ------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 14.05.2010 --------- ----------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 14.05.2010 ------ -------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- --- ------------------