IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2015 Conventional Fastners .Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun ..Respondent & INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2017 Conventional Fastners .Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun ..Respondent Mr. (Dr.) Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for appellant. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent. Dated: 15.11.2017 Coram: Hon ble K.M. Joseph, C.J. Hon ble V.K. Bist, J. K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) There is delay of 68 days in filing ITA No. 21 of 2017. In circumstances, after hearing learned counsel for parties, Application (CLMA No. 11172 of 2017) for condonation of delay will stand allowed and delay will stand condoned. 2. Appeals being connected, we are disposing of same by common judgment. These Appeals are maintained under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). 3. ITA No. 24 of 2015 is directed against judgment of Tribunal, and order came to be passed in respect of assessment year 2009-10. assessee is undertaking, which manufactures electric meters. It claimed benefit of Section 80-IC of Act. Assessing Officer noted that assessee had earned net profit of Rs. 54,31,995/- and entire amount was allowed as deduction 2 under Section 80-IC of Act. Commissioner of Income Tax initiated proceedings under Section 263 of Act. After show cause and opportunity to appellant, order came to be interfered with on following reasoning: It was found that assessee earned amount of Rs. 22,29,129/- from bank interest apparently out of Rs. 54,31,995. Though claimed as business income by appellant, same was actually earned by appellant by way of interest on fixed deposits, which appellant had to maintain for purposes of Bank issuing Bank Guarantee for carrying on business, according to appellant, to provide for performance guarantee. Commissioner took view, after noting judgments of Hon ble Apex Court in cases of Cambay Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II reported in 1978 (113) ITR 84 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) that there is distinction between words derived from and attributable to . Insofar as Section 80-IC is concerned, words used are not attributable to , but derived from . On same, Commissioner distinguished decisions relied on by appellant and proceeded to take view that Assessing Officer was incorrect in including same for purpose of computing deduction under Section 80-IC of Act. Hence, assessment was cancelled under Section 263 of Act and it was to be done afresh after taking all aspects discussed into consideration. Against same, appellant preferred Appeal before Tribunal, which, by order, which is impugned in ITA No. 24 of 2015, dismissed Appeal of assessee. 4. ITA No. 21 of 2017 arises as sequel to earlier proceeding. As just noted matter had been remitted back by Commissioner under Section 263 of Act. Following said order, fresh assessment order was passed, in which interest portion was not deducted. It was added to income and no doubt, shown as income from business. Appeal filed against same was 3 unsuccessful. Equally unsuccessful was Appeal filed before Tribunal as Tribunal found that Assessing Authorities were only following direction given in earlier round. It is this order, which is subject matter of ITA No. 21 of 2017. 5. We heard Mr. (Dr.) Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for Revenue. 6. Question of Law, which is pressed before us, is Question of Law No. A, which reads as under: A. Whether Ld. ITAT is correct in law in rejecting appeal ignoring fact that amount earned from FDR kept as security and as business pre-requisite are deductible u/s 80 IC of I.T. Act 1961. 7. Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for appellant would, in fact, submit that Tribunal has not considered fact that as integral part of appellant s business, appellant had to provide performance guarantee. For purpose of securing performance guarantee, appellant had to provide security to Bank. This security was furnished in form of fixed deposit. It is on fixed deposits that he earned interest. Therefore, he would submit that earning of interest is part of business of appellant. Therefore, it entitled appellant to deduct entire amount of interest under Section 80-IC. He would submit that decisions of Hon ble Apex Court in Cambay Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II reported in 1978 (113) ITR 84 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) will not apply. They were rendered under Section 80HH. There is distinguishing feature in Section 80-IC of Act, which would render decisions inapplicable. In this regard, he would point out difference in language of Section 80HH and Section 80-IC. We may only extract sub-sections (1) of Section 80HH and 80-IC. They read as follows: 4 80HH. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or hotel business in backward areas.-- (1) Where gross total income of assessee includes any profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking, or business of hotel, to which this section applies, there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing total income of assessee, deduction from such profits and gains of amount equal to twenty per cent thereof. 80-IC. Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings or enterprises in certain special States. (1) Where gross total income of assessee includes any profits and grains derived by undertaking or enterprise from any business referred to in sub- section (2), there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing total income of assessee, deduction from such profits and gains, as specified in sub-section (3). 8. He would submit that in Section 80-IC, though no doubt word used is derived , there is also reference to income derived by enterprise. He would further submit that there is reference to income derived from any of businesses mentioned in sub-section (2). Next, he drew our attention to definition of word business in Section 2(13) of Act, which reads as under: (13) business includes any trade, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in nature of trade, commerce or manufacture; 9. He also sought to draw support from following judgments: (1) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Karnal Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in (2000) 243 ITR 2 (SC). (2) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd. reported in (2011) 335 ITR 132. (3) Commissioner of Income Tax vs ELTEK SGS (P) Ltd. reported in (2008) 300 ITR 6 (Del). (4) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jagdish Prasad M. Joshi reported in (2009) 318 ITR 420 (Bom). 5 10. Per contra, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for Revenue would draw our attention to definition of word manufacture in Section 2(29BA) of Act, and he would submit that interest, which is subject matter of controversy in this case, has been earned by supervention of third party, namely, Bank. It has nothing to do with business activities of appellant, which is actually manufacturer of product, which is contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC. He would also reiterate that matter is covered by judgments of Cambay Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II reported in 1978 (113) ITR 84 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC). 11. Firstly, we would refer to judgment relied on by appellant in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. reported in (2000) 243 ITR 2 (SC). As it is short judgment, we would think that it would be profitable to advert to same as it is: 1. Leave granted. 2. In present case, assessee had deposited money to open letter of credit for purchase of machinery required for setting up its plant in terms of assessee's agreement with supplier. It was on money so deposited that some interest has been earned. This is, therefore, not case where any surplus share capital money which is lying idle has been deposited in bank for purpose of earning interest. deposit of money in present case is directly linked with purchase of plant and machinery. Hence, any income earned on such deposit is incidental to acquisition of assets for setting up of plant and machinery. In this view of matter ratio laid down by this court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) will not be attracted. more appropriate decision in factual situation in present case is in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd (1999) 236 6 ITR 315 (SC). appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 12. We may notice in this case at once that issue did not arise under Section 80-IC. issue was, whether interest earned by assessee in said case on money deposited to open letter of credit for purchase of plants and machinery would be liable to be treated as capital receipt or whether it would be income. It was found that deposit of money was directly linked with purchase of plants and, therefore, it was found that income earned was incidental to acquisition of assets for setting up of plant and machinery. Therefore, question, which is deliberated at by Hon ble Apex Court, has absolutely nothing to do with issue that arises in this case. In fact, in this case, amount in question was credited to Profit and Loss Accounts and it is actually treated as income by appellant, and Account of appellant was accepted and Assessing Officer gave deduction treating it as income from his total income, and issue, which arose from order passed by Commissioner was, whether interest income could be deducted under Section 80-IC, as it was not derived from business. Therefore, we would think that appellant cannot rely on said judgment. 13. As far as judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaypee DSC Ventures Ltd. reported in (2011) 335 ITR 132 is concerned, it is necessary to notice actual issue, which arose in said case. Question of Law, which was considered by Delhi High Court, is as follows: Whether in facts and circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.16,36,039/- on ground that interest earned by assessee on fixed deposit receipt being capital in nature cannot be assessed as income from other sources solely on foundation that fixed deposit was made for submitting performance guarantee to National Highways Authority of India? . 7 14. Thereafter, it was held as follows: 2. facts giving rise to present appeal are that respondent - assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2003-04 on 21st September, 2003 declaring nil income. order of assessment was framed under Section 143(3) on 29th March, 2006 determining total income at Rs.16,38,039/-. assessing officer treated amount of interest income which had been set off against project expenses as income from other sources and disallowed same to be set off against cost incurred on project expenses. It is not in dispute that assessee had furnished performance guarantee in favour of NHAI to get contract awarded in its favour and to procure said guarantee, it had kept amount in fixed deposit in bank. project was on BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) basis where promoters were required to bring in their own funds along with borrowed funds from bank/financial institutions for construction of project. It is contended that furnishing of bank guarantee had direct nexus with carrying on of project and, therefore, said set off deserved to be allowed. 6. Being dissatisfied with order passed by first appellate authority, assessee preferred appeal before tribunal and tribunal took note of rivalized submissions and came to opine that assessee had received interest on FDRs and said interest had been reduced from project expenditure which are subject to pending allocations; that assessee had commenced operation of construction of project; that furnishing of bank guarantee was sine qua non for initiation of project and only on furnishing bank guarantee, could assessee enter into contract for construction of project; that it is not case where surplus funds have been utilized to earn interest income; and that it was not unutilized and surplus money which was deposited by assessee to earn interest but on contrary, activity of depositing money was incidental to business of assessee as FDRs were required to be kept to enter into agreement for commencement of project and, hence, FDRs with bank were made with definite purpose and interest earned by assessee on FDRs must go to reduce pre-production expenses. tribunal also opined that interest earned by assessee on FDRs has intrinsic and inseggregable nexus with work undertaken and, therefore, interest earned by assessee is capital in nature and shall go towards adjustment against project 8 expenditure and same cannot be assessed as income from other sources. Being of this view, tribunal allowed appeal preferred by assessee. 21. Keeping in view aforesaid pronouncements in field, present controversy is to be adjudged. As is noticeable from stipulations in agreement, performance guarantee by way of bank guarantee was required for faithful performance of its obligations. non-submission of guarantee would have entailed in termination of agreement and NHAI would have been at liberty to appropriate bid security. That apart, release of such performance security depended upon certain conditions. Thus, it is clearly evincible that bank guarantee was furnished as condition precedent to entering contract and further it was to be kept alive to fulfill obligations. Quite apart from above, release of same was dependent on satisfaction of certain conditions. Thus, present case is not one where assessee had made deposit of surplus money lying idle with it in order to earn interest; on contrary, amount of interest was earned from fixed deposit, which was kept in bank for furnishing bank guarantee. It had inextricable nexus with securing contract. Therefore, we are disposed to think that factual matrix is covered by decisions rendered in Bokaro Steel Ltd. (supra), Karnal Co- operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) and Koshika Telecom Ltd. (supra) and, accordingly, we hold that view expressed by tribunal cannot be found fault with. 15. No doubt, Mr. (Dr.). Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for appellant would point out with reference to contents of Paragraph No. 6 that as in said case, in this case also, fixed deposit had intrinsic and inseggregable nexus with work undertaken. We notice that it was not case of deduction of income under Section 80-IC or even Section 80HH of Act. On other hand, question was, whether interest, which was earned, could be set off against expenses, which were incurred. It is here that Tribunal s findings came to be noted by Hon ble Apex Court, namely, that interest was capital in nature and it would go against project expenditure and same could not be treated as income from other sources. We would, therefore, think that no support can be drawn by appellant from said decision. 9 16. next decision, which we must advert to at instance of appellant, is decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs ELTEK SGS (P) Ltd. reported in (2008) 300 ITR 6 (Del). There, Bench of Delhi High Court was dealing with claim of deduction by assessee on customs duty drawback under Section 80-IB. There, Bench took view that amount, which is received by way of duty drawback is to be treated as reimbursement. Under duty drawback scheme, exporters were entitled to duty drawback on duty paid on raw materials used for purpose of manufacture of goods, which were exported. They had right to either use it themselves or sell it. proceeds of sale were sought to be deducted under Section 80-IB. It was there that Court essentially took view that there is crucial difference between language of Sections 80HH, Section 80I and Section 80IB of Act. We notice following findings: 21. We are of opinion that it is not necessary for us to go as far as Gujarat High Court has done in coming to conclusion that duty drawback is profit or gain derived from industrial undertaking. It is sufficient if we stick to language used in Section 80IB of Act and come to conclusion that duty drawback is profit or gain derived from business of industrial undertaking. language used in Section 80IB of Act is not as broad as expression 'attributable to' referred to by Supreme Court in Sterling Foods and Cambay Electric nor is it as narrow as expression 'derived from'. expression 'derived from business of industrial undertaking' is somewhere in between. 22. Consequently, we are of view that source of duty drawback is business of industrial undertaking which is to manufacture and export goods out of raw material that is imported and on which customs duty is paid. entitlement for duty drawback arises from Section 75(1) of Customs Act, 1962 read with relevant notification issued by Central Government in that regard. 23. Learned Counsel for Revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax . However, on reading of judgment we 10 find that that also deals with Section 80HH of Act and does not lay down any principle different from Sterling Foods. In fact, in Pandian Chemicals reliance has been placed on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. and decision seems to suggest, as we have held above, that expression 'derived from industrial undertaking' is step removed from 'the business of industrial undertaking'. 17. Therefore, in fact, Bench distinguished Hon ble Apex Court s ruling in case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC), which we will advert to, on score that language of Section 80HH differs from language of Section 80-IB. In short, Section 80-IB permits deduction in respect of income from any business whereas under Section 80-IC, income is to be derived from business. 18. next judgment is judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jagdish Prasad M. Joshi reported in (2009) 318 ITR 420 (Bom). There also, Court was concerned about deduction under Section 80-IA. There, Court also noted distinction between language of provisions, and relied on judgment, which we have just cited, namely, that of Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs ELTEK SGS (P) Ltd. reported in (2008) 300 ITR 6 (Del). We notice following paragraph of said judgment: 4. However, Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, strongly relied on judgment of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Eltek Sgs (P) Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Del) 279 : (2008) 3 DTR (Del) 241: (2008) 300 ITR 6 (Del) wherein Delhi High Court has in fact considered very same issue, and also judgment relied upon by Revenue and has clearly distinguished language employed under ss. 80-IB and 80HH and has observed as under (pp. 9 and 10): That apart, s. 80-IB of Act does not use expression profits and gains derived from industrial 11 undertaking as used in s. 80HH of Act but uses expression profits and gains derived from any business referred to in sub-section perusal of above would show that there is material difference between language used in s. 80HH of Act and s. 80-IB of Act. While s. 80HH requires that profits and gains should be derived from industrial undertaking, s. 80-IB of Act requires that profits and gains should be derived from any business of industrial undertaking. In other words, there need not necessarily be direct nexus between activity of industrial undertaking and profits and gains. Learned counsel for Revenue also drew our attention to Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 183 CTR (SC) 99 : (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC). However, on reading of judgment we find that that also deals with s. 80HH of Act and does not lay down any principle difference from CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 439 : (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC). In fact, in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) reliance has been placed on Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 50 : (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) and decision seems to suggest, as we have held above, that expression derived from industrial undertaking is step removed from business of industrial undertaking. 19. Therefore, these decisions may not assist appellant. line of rulings starting from case of Cambay Electrical Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II reported in 1978 (113) ITR 84 and ending with case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) for purpose of our narrative can be relied on. In case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC), we notice that matter was under Section 80HH. Therein, question arose in following factual matrix: assessee had earned interest on deposits, which it had made with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. We have already noticed language of Section 80HH. Court proceeded to hold as follows: 4. Section 80HH of Income-tax Act grants deduction in respect of profits and gains "derived from" 12 industrial undertaking. contention of appellant before us is that interest earned on deposit made with Electricity Board for supply of electricity to appellant's industrial undertaking should be treated as income derived from industrial undertaking within meaning of Section 80HH. It is submitted that without supply of electricity industrial undertaking could not run and since electricity was essential requirement of industrial undertaking, industrial undertaking could not survive without it. It is further pointed out that for purpose of getting this essential input, statutory requirement was that deposit must be made as pre-condition for supply of electricity. Consequently, according to appellant, interest on deposit should be treated as income derived from industrial undertaking within meaning of Section 80HH. 6. word "derived" has been construed as far back in 1948 by Privy Council in CIT v. Raja Bahadur Kamakhaya Narayan Singh [1948] 16 ITR 325 when it said (page 328) : "The word 'derived' is not term of art. Its use in definition indeed demands enquiry into genealogy of product. But enquiry should stop as soon as effective source is discovered. In genealogical tree of interest land indeed appears in second degree, but immediate and effective source is rent, which has suffered accident of non-payment. And rent is not land within meaning of definition." This definition was approved and reiterated in 1955 by Constitution Bench of this court in decision of Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. CIT . It is clear, therefore, that word "derived from" in Section 80HH of Income-tax Act, 1961, must be understood as something which has direct or immediate nexus with appellant's industrial undertaking. Although electricity may be required for purposes of industrial undertaking, deposit required for its supply is step removed from business of industrial undertaking. derivation of profits on deposit made with Electricity Board cannot be said to flow directly from industrial undertaking itself. 7. learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant has referred to several decisions of Madras High Court in order to contend that word "derived from" could be construed to include situations, where income arose from something having close connection 13 with industrial undertaking itself. All decisions cited by appellant have been considered by Madras High Court in case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. . We see no reason to disagree with reasoning given by High Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 's case with respect to those decisions to hold that they do not in any way allow word "derived" in Section 80HH to be construed in manner contended by appellant. 8. learned counsel for appellant then contended that having regard to object with which Section 80HH was introduced in statute book, this court should give liberal interpretation to words in manner so as to allow such object to be fulfilled. rules of interpretation would come into play only if there is any doubt with regard to express language used. Where words are unequivocal, there is no scope for importing any rule of interpretation as submitted by appellant. In circumstances of case, we affirm decision of High Court and dismiss appeal without any order as to costs. 20. We would think that decision, which would apply in facts of this case, is decision in case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC), as language, which is employed in Section 80HH is similar to language used in Section 80-IC. Both in Sections 80HH and 80-IC, Legislature has chosen to employ word derived as distinguished from attributable to . Had Legislature used words attributable to , then it would have much wider effect and it may have encompassed within itself, income, which is subject matter of controversy before us. But insofar as narrow concept has been contemplated by Legislature for purpose of grant of benefit of deduction under Section 80-IC, we would think that with regard to fact that interest, which is earned by appellant, has nothing to do with carrying on of business per se, namely, manufacture and sale of articles in question, appellant would not be entitled to benefit of deduction. 14 21. attempts made by Mr. (Dr.) Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for appellant to make distinction between Section 80HH and Section 80-IC would, in our opinion, be without any basis. In Section 80HH and in Section 80-IC, what is contemplated is deduction of income derived from profits of business. In Section 80-IC, no doubt, it is provided that it may be income derived by undertaking or enterprise. There is no significance to be attached to employment of words undertaking or enterprise in Section 80- IC. As far as resolving controversy before this Court is concerned, appellant claims itself to be undertaking. employment of word enterprise is essentially to deal with different form of business organization. Insofar as appellant is undertaking, there is no distinction otherwise between words used in Section 80HH. Further attempt made to draw support from use of words from any business referred to in sub-section (2), in our view, does not deserve any consideration. It is clear that what Legislature intended was to specify business, which would entitle parties to claim deduction under Section 80-IC (2). In this context, Section 2 (29BA) defines word manufacture , which reads as follows: (29BA) manufacture , with its grammatical variations, means change in non-living physical object or article or thing,-- (a) resulting in transformation of object or article or thing into new and distinct object or article or thing having different name, character and use; or (b) brining into existence of new and distinct object or article or thing with different chemical composition or integral structure;] 22. argument was raised by learned counsel for appellant that after matter was remitted back, in assessment order passed afresh by Assessing officer, it is stated as follows: 6. In view of above facts it is obvious that interest income of Rs. 22,29,129/- is brought to tax under head Income from Business and profession being incidental income attributable to business but cannot be 15 said to have been derived from business of manufacturing activities of assessee. Therefore, interest income of Rs. 22,29,129/- is taxed under head Income from business and profession but deduction U/s 80IC is not allowed and same is added to total income of assessee. 23. He would therefore submit that Assessing Officer has found merit in contentions of appellant that income earned by way of interest actually qualifies as business income and therefore, he relies on said paragraph. 24. We are afraid that said contention is misplaced. What Officer has stated is only that it is treated as business income, which means that it would be income under Section 28 of Act, but he has been careful enough to say that said income is not derived within meaning of Section 80-IC. Any income, which may be derived from carrying on business, even if it is incidental, would qualify as business income under Section 28, but that is not samething as saying that it is business income, which is derived from said business. Therefore, we see no merit in said contention also. 25. Undoubtedly, in Section 2 (13) of Act, business is defined. definition clause is, undoubtedly, to be considered when interpreting Statute, but it is always subject to context being otherwise. We may notice in this regard Section 28 of Act, which provides for income coming under heading Profits and gains of business or profession . We may notice Section 28(i) of Act, which provides as follows: 28. Profits and gains of business of profession. following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under head profits and gains of business or profession ,- (i) profits and gains of any business or profession which was carried on by assessee at any time during previous year; 16 26. Contrast words used in Section 28 (i), it does not use word derive ; it also does not specify any particular business as such. entire income from trade and business would be reckoned under heading business income . In other words, under Section 80-IC, person, enterprise or undertaking is entitled to take benefit of Section 80-IC only insofar as it carries on business, which is mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC and derives profits and gains therefrom. 27. We would think that contentions otherwise are without any basis. In such circumstances, question of law is answered against assessee and in favour of Revenue. Resultantly, both Appeals will stand rejected. (V.K. Bist, J.) (K.M. Joseph, C.J.) 15.11.2017 15.11.2017 Rathour Conventional Fastners v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun