U.T. SHAH, J.M. only point involved in these appeals pertains to certain disallowance made under s. 40A(8) of Act. 2 . assessee is company. assessment years are 1980-81 and 1981-82 and relevant previous years ended on 30th June, 1979 and 30th June, 1980, respectively. 3. In balance sheet as on 30th June, 1979 and 30th June, 1980, under head "unsecured loans", following amounts were shown as "other loans had advances from directors". . As on . 30-6-1979 30-6-1980 . Rs. Rs. A.L. Thankur 84,524.19 86,489.44 P.L. Thankur 90,800.00 75,8 20 .66 J.L. Thankur 82,376.58 88,514.40 K.L. Thankur 60,585.76 75,453.34 R.L. Thankur 1,24,879.05 1,03,666.93 . 4,43,165.58 4,29,944.75 4. During relevant assessment years, assessee paid following interest on aforesaid balances : . 1980-81 1981-82 A.L. Thankur 10,582.19 12,766.44 P.L. Thankur 12,000.00 12,022.60 J.L. Thankur 81,196.58 15,016.44 K.L. Thankur 8,428.76 11,615.34 R.L. Thankur 16,532.05 15,184.93 . 55,739.58 66,605.75 Rounded off to 55,740.00 66,606.00 5 . While framing assessment under s. 143(3) of Act, ITO disallowed 15per cent of Rs. 55,740 and Rs. 66,606 by invoking provisions of s. 40A(8) of Act.. 6 . In appeal before CIT(A) assessee contested aforesaid disallowance made by ITO on ground that provision of s. 40A(8) of Act would not be applicable in case of current account maintained by directors and relatives, with assessee company. Reliance was placed on orders of Tribunal in its own case for asst. yr. 1979-80 as well as in case of ME Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 691 of 1979). Referring to decision in case of CIT vs. Puthuthuotam Estates (1943) Ltd. (1980) 18 CTR(Mad) 3 : (1981) 127 ITR 481 (Mad) and Patil Vijaykumar & Ors. vs. Union of Indian & Ors. (1985) 151 ITR 48 (Kar) and adverting to provisions of s. 40A(8) of Act, CIT(A) upheld act on of ITO in following manner : " money taken by company from directors and relatives in present case is admitted to be money borrowed otherwise there is no basis for claiming interest paid on this money in view of clear definition of word deposit . I am of opinion that money given by directors are covered by word deposit and ITO was justified in disallowing part of interest paid on this money under s. 40A(8). Even otherwise, on going through copy of account of directors filed by assessee I find that transactions were not few in between and were not in nature of current account. Therefore, this ground of appeal fails for both years." 7. Being aggrieved by order of CIT(A), assessee has come up in appeal before Tribunal. At outset, ld. counsel for assessee was fair enough to state that he was aware of fact that order dt. 5th Aug. 1985 of Tribunal (Special Bench) in case of Kaloomal Shorimal Sachdev Rangwa la (P) Ltd. vs. First ITO (1985) 14 ITD 248 (Bom) (SB) was against assessee . However, he hastened to state that it would be his endeavour to impress upon Tribunal that said order in case of Kaloomal need not be followed in view of recent decision dt. 11th Feb. 1986 of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s Pennwalt India Ltd. (Appeal No. 1108 of 1984 in Writ petition No. 2285 of 1984). Placing copy of judgment in case of M/s Pennwalt India Ltd. learned counsel for assessee submitted that in law "deposit" and loan" are two separate and distinct concepts and are not interchangeable. Again, fact that amounts are shown under head "unsecured loans" in balance sheet prescribed under Companies Act, 1956 would not be of any assistance to support view taken by Revenue. In this connection, he further submitted that in case of deposit, it is depositor who is prime mover while in case of loan, it is borrower who is primer mover. According to ld. counsel, since in instant case assessee wanted loans , amount standing to credit in accounts of directors were nothing but loan and, therefore, same could not be termed as deposits to which provision of s. 40A(8) of Act, are applicable. Even assuming for sake of argument that provisions of said section are applicable in instant case, ld. counsel for assessee went on to submit that by virtue of sub-cl. (vii) of cl. (b) of Explanation to said section, amounts standing to credit of directors, have to be excluded since directors are nothing but agents of assessee-company. Reliance was placed on decision in case of Ram Prasad vs. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 122 (SC). He also invited attention of Tribunal to Articles of Association of assessee company as well as relevant pages of Ramayya s Book on Company Law. At instance of Tribunal, ld. counsel for as also filed copies of balance sheets as on 30th June, 1979 and 30th June, 1980. In this view of matter, he strongly argued that disallowances made under s. 40A(8) of Act were bad in law and should, therefore, be deleted from total income of assessee , in each of years under appeal. 8. ld. representative for Revenue on other hand strongly relied on orders of Tribunal in case of Kaloomal (supra) and submitted that we should uphold order of CIT(A). Relying on decisions in cases of CIT vs. Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. 1973 CTR (SC) 49 : (1973) 88 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Buhari Sons Pvt Ltd. (1984) 38 CTR (Mad) 88 : (1983) 144 ITR 12 (Mad), D.N. Banerjee vs. P.R. Mukherji AIR 1953 SC 58 and S. Mohanlal vs. R. Kondiah AIR 1979 SC 1132, he submitted that in absence of any definition in statute, word occurring in statute will have to be understood with reference to objects of Act and context in which they occur. Consequently, definitions given for words in one statute cannot automatically be imported for interpreting same word in another statute. He, therefore, submitted that aforesaid decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s Pennwalt India Ltd. would not have any bearing in deciding point at issue involved in these appeals. In that case, Hon ble High Court was called upon to interpret provision of s. 370 of Companies Act, 1956 which are quite different from provisions of s. 40A(8) of Act. According to him definition of "deposit" as contemplated in s. 40A(8) of Act, is quite akin to s. 58A of companies Act, 1956. While interpreting provisions of s. 58A of Companies Act, 1956 Hon ble High Court has observed as under : "For purposes of this section "deposit" means any deposit of money with, and includes any amount borrowed by company but shall not include s u c h categories of amount as may be prescribed in consultation with Reserve Bank of India. This section, therefore, contains express provision which includes in term "deposit" monies borrowed by company also. If deposit and loan were synonymous there would be no need for such provision. Similarly under section 227(1-A) (d) it is provided that auditor shall inter alia, enquire "weather loans and advances made by company have been shown as deposits". These provisions indicate that it may not be possible to interchange terms "loan" and "deposit" under Companies Act unless there is express provision to that effect or context makes it clear that terms are interchangeable." He, therefore, urged that even assuming for sake of argument aforesaid decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court has to be considered in deciding point as issue, same supports action of IT authorities and not assessee. Inviting our attention to paragraph 18 of said decision more particularly following sentence "there is no provision under s. 370 of Companies Act which prescribes that loan includes deposit for purposes of that section", ld. representative for Department went on to argue that since provisions of s. 370 of Companies Act are not at all similar to provision of s. 40A(8) of Act, reliance placed on said decision on behalf assessee should be rejected outright. Therefore, he invited our attention to s. 40A(8) of Act more Particularly cl. (b) there of defining expression "deposit and submitted that since said definition also includes "any money borrowed by company" , ITO was fully justified in disallowing 15per cent of interest paid to directors. As regards arguments of assessee regarding applicability of sub-cl. (vii) of cl. (b) of Expln. to s. 40A(8) of act, ld. representative for Department submitted that expression other agent" should take colour of preceding words, viz., "purchasing agent" and "selling agent," Therefore, directors of assessee company cannot be treated as "agent" as contemplated under said sub- clause Relying on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT and Anr. (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 193 : (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC), he submitted that if you were to accept sub-missions of assessee then, we would make nonsense of provisions of s. 40A(8) of Act which Hon ble Supreme Court has deprecated with interpreting provisions of s. 40A(8) in said case. He also submitted that in interpreting provisions of s. 40A(8) of Act, we should keep in mind that opening words "notwithstanding anything to contrary contained in any other provisions of Act. ...."mentioned in sub-s. (1) of s. 40A of Act. He also submitted that in interpreting various provision of s. 40A of Act , we should also keep in mind object and purpose with which those provisions were brought on statute. He also relied on Tribunal reported at 29 TTJ 339 (sic). He , therefore, urged that we should uphold order of CIT(A). 9. ld. Counsel for assessee, in his reply, once again urged that directors are agents of assessee company and therefore, provisions of s. 40A(8) of Act would not be applicable in respect of amounts standing to their credit in accounts of assessee . 10. We have very carefully considered rival sub-missions of parties 10. We have very carefully considered rival sub-missions of parties as well as gone through aforesaid decision in case of M/s Pennwalt India Ltd. and are of view that said decision in fact, supports action of IT authorities rather than stand taken on behalf of assessee . In that case Hon ble High Court was required to give its opinion regarding provisions of s. 370 of Companies act which prohibit giving loans in excess of certain prescribed percentage mentioned in that section. It is in this connection that Hon ble High Court had observed that "deposits" and "loans" are two separate and distinct concepts under law. However, Hon ble High Court has given decision in favour of Petitioner mainly on ground that under s. 370 of companies Act there is no provision to include loan in concept of "deposit". We entirely agree with submissions made on behalf of Revenue that in very judgment, Hon ble High Court has also considered provisions of s. 58A of companies Act, 1956 more particularly meaning of "deposit" mentioned in Explanation to said section which is in pari materia with definition of "deposit" mentioned include. (b) of Expln. to s. 40A(8) of Act. relevant extract on this issue has already been reproduced above which clearly shows that in context in which expression "deposit" is used in statue, it is quite possible to hold that deposit and loan are synonymous. Since such is case in present appeals, we fail to appreciate how as can get any benefit from said decision in case of M/s Pennwalt India Ltd. At this stage, it is pertinent to note he following extract from auditor s report to members : "The company has not taken any loans from companies, firms or from other parties to whom requirements of section 301 of Companies Act, 1956 are applicable. rate of interest and terms and conditions on which loans have been taken from directors are not prima facie prejudicial to interest of company." aforesaid extract clearly establishes that what was standing to credit of directors was loan on which assessee paid interest. definition of "deposit" in cl. (b) of Expln. to s. 40A (8) of Act, takes in its sweep any money borrowed by company. In this view of matter, we have no hesitation in rejecting submissions made on behalf of assessee on this issue. 11. As regards assessee s stand that directors are its agents and, therefore, by virtue of sub-cl. (vii) of cl. (b) of Explns. to s. 40A(8) of Act, amounts standing to their credit are not to be considered as "deposit", we are not inclined accept same. We have come to this conclusion as we entirely agree with submissions made on behalf of Revenue that expression "other agent" has to be interpreted in same manner as one has to interpret expression "purchasing agent" and "selling agent". It may be possible to hold that under provisions of Companies Act, 1956, directors are agents of company. However, expression "other agent" used in said sub-clause has to be understood in context in which it is placed. Therefore, we are not prepared to accept submissions made on behalf of assessee that directors could be treated as other agent" as contemplated in said sub- clause. 12. For reasons stated above and respectfully following order of Tribunal in case of Kaloomal(supra), we have no hesitation in upholding order of CIT(A). 13. In result, both appeals are dismissed. *** HINDUSTAN MARBLES PVT. LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER