1 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4088 OF 2016 M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4089 OF 2016 ORDER CIVIL APPEAL NO.4089 OF 2016 1. Two issues have been answered by High Court vide impugned judgment, namely: - (i) Whether on facts and law, Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that 90% of interest of Rs.11,86,000/- received from customers on belated payments could not be reduced from profit and gains of business under clause(baa) of Explanation below Section 80 HHC(4B) of I.t. Act when same issue has been decided in favour of Revenue in case of Malwa Cotton spinning Mills Ltd. In I.T.A. No.94 of 2006. (ii) Whether on facts and law, Honble Income tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction u/s 80M was to be allowed without allocating personal and administrative and financial expenses proportionately for computing net dividend income referred to in Section 80AA of I.T. Act? 2. As regards first issue, Tribunal in its final order dated 27.06.2008 had observed thus: - Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2020.02.20 We, therefore, keeping in view of 17:42:21 IST Reason: aforesaid application u/s 158A(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 moved by assessee, decide issue against assessee with rider 2 that whenever issue is settled by Hon ble Apex Court for Assessment year 1998-99 that shall be applicable to this appeal also. If any objection is to be raised by Department on said application that can be raised within 30 days. With these observations, present issue is decided against assessee. 3. It is not in dispute that stated issue in reference to Assessment Year 1998-1999 has been answered by High Court on 05.09.2008. That decision having become final will apply proprio vigore to subject assessment year i.e. 1996-1997, in terms of afore- mentioned order of Tribunal. We order accordingly. 4. As regards second issue, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had remitted proceedings to Assessing Officer with following observations: - fourth ground of appeal is relating to deduction u/s 80-M. issue is covered by decision of Special Bench in case of PSIDC vs. DCIT, 103 ITJ 364 (Special Bench, Chandigarh). learned counsel for assessee has stated before us that he has no objection if actual expenditure, if any incurred for earning dividend income is deducted from gross dividend receipt. We direct Assessing Officer to work out disallowance, if any. 5. It is not in dispute that thereafter Assessing Officer completed assessment in terms of remand order and challenge thereto before Tribunal has also become final. 6. Be it noted that as regards said claim, 3 High Court had observed that issue has been answered in favour of Revenue in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others [1985] 47 CTR 349 (SC). It is for Department to consider whether assessment done after remand and culminated with order of Tribunal is in conformity with said decision of Supreme Court or otherwise. 7. Nothing more is required to be said as appellant is content with order passed by Tribunal, which as of now has been allowed to become final by Revenue-respondent. 8. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. CIVIL APPEAL NO.4088 OF 2016 In view of order in companion appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No.4089/2016 and for same reasons, this appeal is also disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed of. J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 18, 2020. 4 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 4088/2016 M/S VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 4089/2016 (IV) Date : 18-02-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI For Appellant(s) Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, Adv. Ms. Snidha Mehra, Adv. Mr. Chakitan V.S. Papta, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER appeals are disposed of in terms of signed order. In view of above, pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (NEETU KHAJURIA) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on file.) Vardhman Textiles Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax