TCA No.981 of 2019 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.07.2020 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.981 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Appellant versus M/s.Madras Refineries Ltd., Chennai. .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against order made in ITA No.1497/Mds/93 dated 29.10.2002 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, for Assessment Year 1990-91. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 6 TCA No.981 of 2019 JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. This appeal by revenue filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act' for brevity), is directed against order dated 29.10.2002 in ITA No.1497/Mds/93 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, for Assessment Year 1990-91. 2. appeal has been filed by revenue raising following Substantial Questions of Law: Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in upholding order of CIT (A) that interest on deposits in IDBI should be treated as business income purely because deposits were made to comply with statutory provisions under Income Tax Act? 3. We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for respondent/assessee. 4. assessee, joint venture company with Government of India, claimed relief under Section 32AB of Act. Assessing http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 6 TCA No.981 of 2019 Officer did not agree claim and assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, Chennai, hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'. CIT(A) by order dated 28.10.1994 held that interest received by assessee from Fixed Deposit from IDBI should be treated as part of business income only. revenue filed appeal before tribunal, which was dismissed by impugned order. Challenging same, revenue is before this Court raising above question and contending that it is substantial question of law to be decided by this Court. 5. Assessing Officer denied relief to assessee on ground that items are not plant and machineries and they are only pipes, steel plates, M.S.angles, etc., and these items do not support purchase of any new plant or machinery and therefore, it is not classified under Section 32AB of Act. 6. CIT(A) examined correctness of this factual finding by taking note of materials placed before Court and also looking into whether amount claimed by assessee can be stated to be utilised http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 6 TCA No.981 of 2019 for purchase of new plant and machinery. After referring to dictionary meaning of 'purchase', CIT(A) concluded that such transaction would not only be direct buying of plant or machinery for consideration, which is contemplated by term 'purchase' and purchase can include either buying item concerned directly or obtaining it by labour or acquiring by other means. Accordingly, relief was granted to assessee. 7. Correctness of finding rendered by CIT(A) was tested by tribunal and tribunal confirmed finding by observing that CIT(A) has restored issue to file of Assessing Officer with direction to verify evidences to be furnished by assessee, to show that purchase of machinery was made during period under consideration, so as to be eligible for deduction of claim under Section 32AB of Act and pass consequential orders. 8. Further, tribunal noted that CIT(A) has held that interest received by assessee from deposits made in IDBI should be treated as business income only. These findings of fact coupled with law was affirmed by tribunal in impugned order and we agree http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 6 TCA No.981 of 2019 with elaborate reasoning given by CIT(A). Thus, we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 9. In result, Tax Case Appeal filed by revenue is dismissed and order passed by tribunal is confirmed. substantial question of law as framed for consideration is not answered, as on facts, we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. No Costs. [T.S.S., J.] [V.B.S., J.] 14.07.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order. ars http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 6 TCA No.981 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. ars TCA No.981 of 2019 14.07.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 of 6 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Madras Refineries Ltd