ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) DELAY in refiling the appeal is condoned.
(2.) THE Revenue has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order of 1997 -98, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that 90 per cent of interest of Rs. 384.27 lakhs received from customers on belated payments could not be reduced from 'profits and gains of business' under cl. (baa) of the Explanation below s. 80HHC(4B) of the IT Act, when the same issue has been decided in favour of the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. (2008) 302 ITR 53 (P&H) in IT Appeal No. 94 of 2006 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the sales -tax and excise duty were not includible in total turnover for computing deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, when the sales -tax and excise duty were realised as a part of sale proceeds of the goods manufactured by the respondent ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under s. 80M was to be allowed without allocating personal and administrative and financial expenses proportionately for computing the net dividend income referred to in s. 80AA of the IT Act -
(3.) THE assessee claimed deduction under s. 80HHC. The amount of deduction was worked out after reducing 90 per cent interest income under cl. (baa) of the Explanation below s. 80HHC(4B) of the Act. The assessee did not take into account the interest received on account of belated payments on the ground that such income was from business and not from interest. The AO disallowed the plea. The AO also added sales -tax and excise duty to the total turnover. Deduction under s. 80M of the Act was also reduced after apportioning interest and personal and administrative expenses attributable to earning of dividend. The CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee, which view has been affirmed by the Tribunal. "Present : Mr. Rajesh Sethi, advocate for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that only questions Nos. 1 and 3 are surviving for consideration of this Court and as far as question No. 2 is concerned, the same has already been answered against the Revenue by this Court in the case of CIT vs. VARDHMAN POLYTEX LTD. (2006) 203;