Case Law Details
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
We find that the DRP had specifically directed the assessee to file justification for treating the interest income as business income, that it had not filed any explanation in that regard. Interest income can be taxed under both the heads i.e. business income or income from other sources depending upon the facts of the case.So,no hard and fast rule can be made in that regard. In the matter under consideration,the DRP has given a finding of fact that assessee was not in the business of money lending,that the surplus funds available with it were kept in various deposits on which interest income had been earned. Nothing has been brought on record that finding given by the DRP is not based on facts. In our opinion,if surplus available with an assessee earns interest from the deposits made by it, then it cannot be taxed under the head business income. In short, the DRP has rightly observed that the assessee is not in the business of money-lending/earning income from its business.Therefore, in our opinion there is no need to disturb the directions of the DRP. Last ground of appeal is decided against the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Challenging the order,dtd. 31/12/2013 of Assessing Officer (AO),passed u/s.143(3)read with section 144C(13) of the Act,the assessee has filed the appeal for the above mentioned Assessment Year(AY.).The AO has also challenged the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).We are disposing both the appeals together.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of fast moving consumer goods,filed its return of income on 25/9/2009, declaring total income of Rs. 9,61,86,80, 724/-.The AO completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee at Rs.11,17,15,69, 050/-.
ITA/Mum/1321,AY.2009-10:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
