bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.990 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.990 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.990 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.B.M.Chatterjee i/b.Ms.Anamika Malhotra for the Appellant. Mr.Prakash Shah with J.H.Motwani i/b. PDS Legal for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the above Appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in holding the Ld CIT(A)’s finding that assessee’s main business is of granting loans & advances ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in law in ignoring the fact that main activity of assessee is manufacturing and trading of consumable products as is evidenced by the fact that receipt from sale of manufacturing products was Rs.37.77 crores which is much more than income from other activities and assessee also pays excise duty on manufactures goods? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in law in ignoring that only surplus funds have been utilized for giving loans and advances that too to sister concerns and not to outsiders and this cannot enable assessee to claim that financing is its main business ? :2: 2. We have perused the order dated 9th September, 2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) as well as the judgment dated 5th November, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The CIT (A) has clearly given a finding that the Respondent’s business of granting loans and advances is the principal business from the point of view of deployment of funds during the relevant assessment year and earlier four years. The Tribunal in paragraph No.5 of its order has categorically concurred with the findings of the CIT (A) that the Assessee’s main business is granting loans and advances and therefore the case of the Assessee falls under exception clause of Explanation to 73. In view of the aforesaid findings of facts, there is no substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal, the Appeal stands dismissed. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)