- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th September, 2002 by which the contention of the Revenue was upheld and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in respect of both the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. There were naturally two appeals. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the assessee has come up in appeal.
(2.) The appeal was admitted by an order dated 23rd December, 2003 on the basis of the following substantial questions of law: I. Whether the expenditure on account of municipal tax, repairs and insurance being allowable directly under sections 30 and 31 of the I.T. Act, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of the said expenditure in respect of guest house under section 37(4) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and the decision of the learned Tribunal is perverse? II. Whether, the interest income of Rs. 1,07,30,308/- for the assessment year 1991-92 and that of Rs. 1,17,56,069/- for the assessment year 1992-93 having arisen mostly from deposits with NABARD. IDBI Scheme on overdue bills from Brooke Bond India Limited, electricity deposits, National Savings Certificates, time deposits, loans to employees, security deposits and so on which are either integrally connected with the business activities of the assessee company of growing green tea leaves and manufacturing black tea and/or from investment of business funds lying temporarily surplus with the assessee company, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction under section 33AB of the I.T. Act pertaining to the said interest income and the said decision of the learned Tribunal is perverse? III. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Lower Authorities whereby the Lower Authorities held the consideration of Rs. 1,27,460/- being the sale proceeds of wind fallen shade trees as income from other source rejecting the claim of the assessee as an income from capital gains which was claimed as exempt under section 54E of the I.T. Act and the said decision of the learned Tribunal is perverse? IV. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in not admitting and/or adjudicating the additional grounds preferred by the appellant with respect to allowance of depreciation and computation of written down value under section 43(6) of the I.T. Act and the said decision of the Tribunal is perverse? V. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not directing the Assessing Officer on a proper interpretation of section 43(6) of the I.T. Act to compute the opening and closing written down value of blocks of assets by deducting only 40% of the depreciation computed at prescribed rates being depreciation actually allowed and the said decision of the Tribunal is perverse?
(3.) Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the first question formulated above is already covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT, 2005 278 ITR 546.;