1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2310 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Vidyut Corporation ..Respondent. Ms. Suchitra Kamble with Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. K.B.Bhujle with P.V. Bhujle for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2010 P.C. :- 1. In the appeal which has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been formulated:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) to allow deduction under Section 80IB on the interest income which was not derived from the manufacturing activity of the industrial undertaking ? " 2. From the order of the Tribunal dated 13 October, 2008 for assessment year 2001-02, the following question of law would 2 actually arise:- “ Whether the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow a deduction in respect of the amount of Rs.56,01,518/- received by the assessee as interest on delayed payment charges from M/s. Bajaj Electrical Ltd. and the interest of Rs. 10,25,687/- on unsecured loans advanced by the assessee ? “ 3. The appeal is admitted on the aforesaid question. In so far as the first part of the question is concerned, namely, the amount received by the assessee of Rs.56.01 lakhs from M/s. Bajaj Electrical Ltd., the question is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in terms of the judgment delivered by this Court today in the case of the assessee in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2865 of 2009. 4. In so far as the second part of the question which relates to the interest of Rs.10.25 lakhs received for unsecured loans is concerned, that would be covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue in terms of the judgment in the companion appeal as stated above. For the reasons indicated in the aforesaid judgment of the Court in that appeal, the appeal is allowed on the aforesaid question. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)