CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.

236 ITR 315Supreme Court of India1999#200 most cited

What is CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. authority for?

Interest earned during the pre-commencement period of a project, on advances made to contractors or on unutilized borrowed funds, if inextricably linked to the setting up of the plant, constitutes a capital receipt. Such interest is not taxable as income but can be reduced from the capital work-in-progress.

370

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. · 236 ITR 315 · pre-commencement interest · capital receipt · income from other sources · unutilized borrowed funds · advances to contractors · capital work-in-progress · Section 56 · Section 28 · setting up of plant

Also reported as

102 Taxmann 94

Sections most often in play

Section 37(1)Section 143(3)Section 199Section 250Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 32Section 194A

Issues it is cited on

section 32(1)section 22section 57section 56section 32profits and gains of business or professionadvance taxsection 37(1)revenue expenditureincome from other sourcessection 28section 37

Judgments citing CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…oresaid issue of capitalization has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 22.01.2010 for the A.Y. 1997-98. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel 236 ITR 315 and Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills 243 ITR 2. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the aforesaid interest and miscellaneous income capitalized while excluding the same from the eligible profits. 19. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 20. We have h…

M/S. Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd., Dibrugarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…e project i.e. integrated petrochemicals complex at Pipalkota, District Dibrugarh, Assam and has only commenced/set up/operation in February, 2016 (AY 2016-17), by relying on the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (SC), and the decision in CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 (SC), we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of assessee, so we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, we sustain his action and dismiss the revenue appeal for all the assessment years i.e. AYs 2011-…

M/S. Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd., Dibrugarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 94/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…e project i.e. integrated petrochemicals complex at Pipalkota, District Dibrugarh, Assam and has only commenced/set up/operation in February, 2016 (AY 2016-17), by relying on the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (SC), and the decision in CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 (SC), we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of assessee, so we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, we sustain his action and dismiss the revenue appeal for all the assessment years i.e. AYs 2011-…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Dibrugarh vs. M/S. Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd., Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 89/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…e project i.e. integrated petrochemicals complex at Pipalkota, District Dibrugarh, Assam and has only commenced/set up/operation in February, 2016 (AY 2016-17), by relying on the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bokaro Steels Ltd. 236 ITR 315 (SC), and the decision in CIT Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation 247 ITR 268 (SC), we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of assessee, so we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, we sustain his action and dismiss the revenue appeal for all the assessment years i.e. AYs 2011-…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Karnataka Power Transmission

In the result, the appeal fails

ITA/196/2013HC Karnataka21 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263

…176 (SC). It is also urged that hypothetical income cannot be brought to tax as income and only real income can be taxed. In this connection, reference has been made on decision of the Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BOKARO STEEL LTD.', 263 ITR 315 (SC). It is also argued that decision relied upon by learned counsel for the revenue do not apply to the fact situation of the case as Accounting Standard-9 was not in existence at the time 11 when the decisions were rendered. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Adm…

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Kakinada Sez Private Limited, R.R.Dist

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1012/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Kakinada Sez Pvt. Ward-2(1), Ltd., Hyderabad. Shamshabad. Pan: Aacck 5670 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue By: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavat Peerya, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…not alter the nature of the amount as this amount is inextricably linked with the setting up of the plant and such interest income cannot be treated as income from other sources. Similarly the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Limited 236 ITR 315 (SC) has endorsed a similar view stating that if interest is earned on funds primarily brought for infusion into the business then such interest income cannot be classified as income from other sources. Even if the income is earned in a period prior to the commencement of business it had to be in the nature of a capital receipt and was required t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/S Career Point Infra Ltd., Kota

ITA 720/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, DCIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14A

…97-98 and 1998-99 - Interest on moneys borrowed for period prior to commencement of business was to be allowed as deduction from interest under section 57 while computing 'Income from other sources' in respect of interest received In Bokaro Steel Ltd. 119991 236 ITR 315, it was a case of a Government company which during the period of construction of the plant had advanced monies to contractors on which it was earning interest, received rent from quarters let out to employees, received hire charges on plant let out to contractors and received royalty on stones removed from the assessee's lands. The Supreme Court…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 670/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…d tribunal are not under challenge. The CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal have held that in view of the factual position quoted above the decision M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 / 102 Taxman 94 was applicable as the Commitment Advance, which had been paid to PFC. This is not a case of surplus funds, which were available and investment were made in fixed deposits to earn interest. The interest paid to the power procurement utilities on commitment advances was capitalized. Interest paid and interest received were inextrica…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 669/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…d tribunal are not under challenge. The CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal have held that in view of the factual position quoted above the decision M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 / 102 Taxman 94 was applicable as the Commitment Advance, which had been paid to PFC. This is not a case of surplus funds, which were available and investment were made in fixed deposits to earn interest. The interest paid to the power procurement utilities on commitment advances was capitalized. Interest paid and interest received were inextrica…

Road Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 668/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Pareek (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 14ASection 244ASection 35D

…d tribunal are not under challenge. The CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal have held that in view of the factual position quoted above the decision M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315 / 102 Taxman 94 was applicable as the Commitment Advance, which had been paid to PFC. This is not a case of surplus funds, which were available and investment were made in fixed deposits to earn interest. The interest paid to the power procurement utilities on commitment advances was capitalized. Interest paid and interest received were inextrica…

Rak Construction Project Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7584/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…profits received by the assessee on account of damages for deprivation and use of occupation. Hence, the compensation received is capital in nature. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Bokaro Steel Ltd., [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC); and ii) CIT v/s Karnal Co–operative Sugar Mills Ltd., [2000] 243 ITR 002 (SC). 8. As regards the validity of re–opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely relying upon the assessment order passed for the assessment year 2012–13, the Assessing Officer has re–opened the ass…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emc Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2149/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

…ssessee- company had not been able to realize the enhanced charges. Since no real income having accrued, it was held that the amount due on enhancement was not assessable to Income Tax. 11. In a subsequent decision rendered in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, following its earlier decision in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) affirmed the decision of the Patna High Court wherein it was held that the entry in the books of account shown as income from Hindustan Steel Ltd. for the 8 locomotives supplied by the assessee-company to them could not be brought to tax as in…

Btw-Atlanta Transformers India Pvt. Ltd., Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1642/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

…at pages 258, 259 and 260 of report, i.e., 315 ITR 255, as under:- 5. In our opinion the Tribunal has misconstrued the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172 and that of Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 315. The test which permeates through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals [1997] 227 ITR 172 is that if funds have been borrowed for setting up of a plant and if the funds are 'surplus' and then by virtue of that circumstance they are invested in fixed deposits the income earned in the form of interest will be taxable unde…

Loop Telecom Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3188/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Raj Gopalan- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Michel Jerald- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 36

…process of setting up of project, such receipts will go on to reduce the project costs. Such receipts would, thus be capital in nature. Reliance was placed, inter- alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999 236 ITR 315) & CIT V/s Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited (243 ITR 2) and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT v. Maharashtra Electrosmelt Limited (214 ITR 489). 5.2 However, not convinced, Ld. AO opined that business activities were started during the year and substantial opening working-in-progress (WIP) M/s. Loop Telecom Ltd. A.Y…

Hazaribag Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6696/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negihazaribagh Ranchi Vs. Ito-14(2)(1) 4Th Floor, Expressway Ltd. The Il&Fs Financial Center Aaykar Bhawan Plot No.C-22, G Block M.K.Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aacch2490J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 234BSection 56(1)

…d, by the assessment order, the assesee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assesee has reiterated its arguments made before the Ld. AO, in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assesse and also by relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. vs CIT(Supra) held that whether, funds used for deployment in fixed deposits to earn interest is inextricably link…

Sikar Bikaner Highway Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6936/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla with Shri Saurabh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Smiti Samant (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 56

…for setting up of plant and the surplus were invested in Fixed Deposit, the income earned in the form of interest was taxed as ‘Income from Other Sources’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bokaro Steel Ltd. [236 ITR 315 (SC)] and held that if the income is earned by way of interest or any other manner on funds which are extricable linked to set up of the plant, such income is required to be capitalized to be set up of against the pre-operative expenses. It was held that test is whether activities are taken up for setting up of business and the funds which gener…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…of the assessee, the Tribunal held that the income on FDRs was required to be capitalized to be reduced from the capita work-in-progress and it was fully covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Bokaro Steel Ltd. (236 ITR 315} and not by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd (supra). The relevant observations of the Tribunal are extracted below: "7. First of all, it is factually evident that the interest has been earned on FDRs KEPT WITH Banks for a very short period of time. The details are placed in the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri A.N. Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri A.N. Mishra, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, vs. Triumph Realty Pvt. Ltd., Ward 25(4), New Delhi Plot No.2, Vasantkunj, Phase-II, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. PAN-AACCT8092L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal & Ms. Rinki, Advocates Date of Hearing 21.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement 29.11.2019 ORDER Per Amit Shukla, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order…

ACIT-17(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Urban Infrastructure Fund, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4871/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4871/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-17(2) बिधम/ Maharashtra-Urban Infrastructure Fund O/O Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Cr-2 Bldg, Ground Floor, Income Tax-17(2), Aayakar Barrister Rajni Patel Road, Bhavan, Room No.123A, 1St Nariman Point, Mumbai- Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400021. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtm8094M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.05.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -57, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (SR
Section 143(3)

…ndertaken any business activity nor earned any income from business activity. Accordingly, the AO relying upon various judicial decision in the case titled as (i) CIT Vs. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1993) 203 ITR 881 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC) (iii) CIT Vs. Coromandal Cement Ltd. 2 A.Y.2010-11 (1998) 234 ITR 412 (SC) and (iv) CIT Vs. Autokast Ltd. (2001) 248 ITR 110 (SC) allowed expenses of Rs.43,247/- incurred for the purpose of earning interest income and disallowed the balance expenses totaling to Rs.1,96,74,479/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before th…

Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Power Transmission Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7617/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Essar Power Transmission Income Tax (Cir)-(2)(1), Company Ltd., Room No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K.K. Marg, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai - 20 Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aabce6085B (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 26/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh (DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)

…ndings of the Ld. CIT(A), in the light of the facts of the present case, we notice that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 SC, apart from the other cases relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). Since the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of…