CIT vs. SAHDEV JEWELLERS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/880/2011HC DelhiDLHC01038547201125 July 2011Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that similar questions of law were raised by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 865/2011 & 866/2011, and the order passed in those appeals was to be followed. It was observed that the Revenue's contention before the ITAT, that interest income from FDR is treated as 'income from other sources' only for the limited purpose of ascertaining allowable expenses under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, had been accepted. The Tribunal further noted that ITA Nos. 865/2011 & 866/2011 were dismissed on July 21, 2011, holding that there was no question of law involved. Following this precedent, the present appeals were also dismissed. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the substantive issue but rather disposed of the appeals based on a prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The assessee is appealing against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Revenue has also filed appeals (ITA Nos. 865/2011 & 866/2011) raising similar questions of law. The ITAT had previously passed an order in the Revenue's appeals, which was to be followed in the present case. The Revenue's contention before the ITAT was that interest income from Fixed Deposits (FDR) was treated as 'income from other sources' only for the limited purpose of ascertaining allowable expenses under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeals on July 21, 2011, holding that no question of law was involved.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that there was no question of law involved in the appeals filed by the Revenue. (Question of law, relating to the interpretation of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended before the ITAT that interest income from FDRs was to be treated as 'income from other sources' only for the limited purpose of ascertaining expenses allowable under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue implicitly argued that the ITAT's decision in their earlier appeals, which dismissed their appeals on the ground of no question of law, should be followed in the present appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

I "/" 2S.O7.?OLL Present: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, aPPellant. Mr.Amit Dayal, Advocate + ITA NoS.88O/2O11 & 879/2O11 3,4# (coMMoN ORDERS) Sr.Standing Counsel for the for the respondent * Similar question of law has been raised by the respondent in ITA Nos.865l2O11 & 86612O11. In fact order passed by the Tribunal in that appeals has been called upon in the present case as well. It was noted that the contention of the respondent before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal contending that interest income of FDR is treated aS "income from other resources" has been accepted only for limited purpose namely to ascertain the expenses which are allowable under Section 57 (iii) of the Income Tax Act. The matter is thus not required to be answered. ITA Nos. 86512011 & 86612011 were dismissed on 2I.7.2OlI holding that there was no question of law involved. Following that order, these appeals are also dismissed. l.a" q 4 tl l_Z ( :ffi. /--'-<'(4' ""t" 25,?OLL M.L.MEHTA, J. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →