bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1664 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1665 OF 2009 M/s.Ardour Builders Pvt.Ltd. ..Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent Ms.Vasanti Patel for appellant. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not want to press question Nos.1,2 & 4. The statement made in this behalf is taken on record and appeal to that extent is rejected. So far as question Nos.3 and 5 are concerned, the appeal is admitted. Question Nos.3 and 5 read as under: a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. CIT (227 ITR 172) which is distinguishable and not applicable to the case of the appellant ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in taxing the interest income as income from other sources without allowing corresponding interest paid by the appellant as deduction u/s.57 of the Act when nexus between amount borrowed and amount lent was not disputed ? 3. Learned Counsel for both the parties agree that the aforesaid question Nos.3 and 5 are covered by the order of this Court dated 26 th August, 2009 passed in ITXA No.47 of 2004 and other connected matters in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpataru Construction Pvt. Ltd. For the reasons stated therein, both the appeals are allowed and both questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)