IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 I.T.A.No. 58 of 2008 -------------------------------- ORDER DATED 22.4.2003 IN ITA.346/COCH/1999 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN .................... APPELLANT/APELLANT:- ---------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (TAXES) & SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- I.T.A.No.58 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Revenue being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in I.T.A.No.346 of 1999 dated 22.4.2003 for the assessment year 1993-94 is before us in this appeal. 2. The Tribunal while disposing of the Revenue's appeal, had merely followed the judgment of the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.245 of 1999 dated 7.12.2002. That appeal pertains of the assessment year 1996-97. 3. The Revenue being aggrieved by the orders passed in I.T.A.No.245 of 1999 dated 7.12.2002 was before this Court in I.T.A.No.32 of 2003. 4. In the aforesaid appeal, the Revenue has raised the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. It is as under: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the absence of a finding that the method adopted by the Assessing Officer invoking section 145 of the Act is not reasonable, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the method of treatment given to interest receipts as well as interest payments by the Assessing Officer? I.T.A.No.58 of 2008 2 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method of treatment given to interest receipts and payments by the assessee, the direction given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the confirmation of the same by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are in accordance with law and accountancy practice? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision made by the assessee for bad trade investments is an allowable deduction? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of interest on interest tax?” 5. The very same issues raised in the aforesaid appeal is raised and canvassed in this appeal also. 6. It is brought to our notice by Sri.George K.George, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, that, this Court has disposed of I.T.A.No.32 of 2003 by its orders dated 23.6.2008 and in that has answered the questions of law framed by the Revenue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. I.T.A.No.58 of 2008 3 7. The issues involved in this appeal, as we have already noticed, are identical with the issues raised and decided by this Court in I.T.A.No.32 of 2003 dated 23.6.2008. 8. The revenue is not in a position to convince, why we should not follow the view taken by this Court in ITA No.32/2003. 9. In view of the above, respectfully following observations made in the aforesaid decision, this appeal is also disposed of in the same terms, observations, conditions and directions. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk