1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.47 OF 2004 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.51 OF 2004 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.52 OF 2004 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.55 OF 2004 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.56 OF 2004 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.57 OF 2004 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.58 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Kalpataru Construction Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant in all the appeals Mrs. Vasanti B. Patel i/b. P.C. Tripathi for respondent in all the appeals. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeals were admitted on 01/03/2005 on the following questions of law treating them as substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest income earned by the assessee from work in progress should be taxed, as interest from other sources but interest on borrowings which were utilized for giving as advances to sister concerns had to be set off against interest received in terms of provision of section 57(ii) ? 2 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. (227 ITR 172) is not applicable in the case of the assessee who is a real estate developer / builder and who has already commenced the business ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in restoring the matter to the file of the assessing officer for limited purpose of ascertaining deduction to be allowed against interest receipts and directed that the interest on borrowings utilized by the assessee for giving loans and advances to sister concerns should be deducted under section 57 from interest received and resultant income should be taxed as assessee's income from other sources ? 2. Notwithstanding the fact that the issue sought to be raised in the above appeals is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. Lok Holdings in Income Tax Appeal No.51 of 2005 decided on 15.1.2008 (unreported), Mr. Sahadevan tried to persuade us to take a different view based on the same submissions, which were unsuccessfully advanced before the earlier Bench by the Revenue. 3. We have considered the submissions made and found no case was made out to take a view different than the one taken by the earlier Bench in the case of M/s. Lok Holdings (supra). 4. The questions on which the appeals were admitted stand answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue for the reasons recorded in the case of M/s. Lok Holdings (supra). 5. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)