JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the respondent Income Tax Deptt. 2. The appellant Williamson Financial Services Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tea. The appellant company filed its return of income for the assessment year 1990-91 claiming the deduction under Section 80(8)HHC and also under Section 32AB of I.T. Act. The Assessment was completed vide order dated 18.3.1993, whereby the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the appellant under Section 80(8)HHC on the interpretation of Rule 8(1). The full deduction under Section 32AB was also disallowed. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant company approached the Commissioner of Income Tax by preferring an appeal and the appellate authority granted both the reliefs to the appellant, whereupon the Revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in ITA No. 22/GAU/1996. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Income Tax Deptt. and remitted back the same to the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the issue afresh and hence, the present appeal. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this court: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction under Section 80HHC is not to be allowed from the composite income of the assessee before application of Rule 8(1) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962? 2. Whether the dividend, interest and other income earned by the appellant company can be included in computing the profits of the eligible business under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act ? 4. So far the first question of law is concerned, Dr. Saraf has submitted that the above question has been answered by this court in the case of Bajloni Group Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Income Tax wherein it was held that the special deduction is required to be computed before apportionment of income as agriculture and non agriculture income, under Section 80HHCread with Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules. 5. Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that in view of the above decision of this court, the matter stands settled. 6. Now coming to the second question, the appellant claimed deduction of Rs.52,59,000 under Section 32AB. 5. Mr. Bhuyan has submitted that in view of the above decision of this court, the matter stands settled. 6. Now coming to the second question, the appellant claimed deduction of Rs.52,59,000 under Section 32AB. The Assessing Officer, however, held that while computing the income, deduction of an amount of Rs.79,93,253, which was shown as interest income, has also been included by the auditors towards the business income. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the interest income is not a 'business receipt' and cannot form a part of the profits in the business and accordingly, the interest income was excluded from the gross receipt. The appellate authority did not agree with the Assessing authority as regards the application of Rule 32AB and held that all the income of the appellant company arose in the normal course of carrying on the business of the said company and therefore form a part of the appellant's business income. Although they have been shown and classified under different head of income, they continue to be income arising out of the business of the company and accordingly, directed the Assessing authority to include the interest income, dividend income and other income in the profits of the eligible business income while computing the deduction available to the appellant under Section 32AB. 7. The learned Tribunal, however, held that interest income and dividend income did not come from the profits on account of business and profession, such interest and dividend cannot be included in the income for the purpose of deduction under Section 32AB. 8. The question in the present case is whether the income from interest and dividend falls under the definition of "eligible business or profession" under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act. The word 'eligible' is deleted from the Act in the year 1991, but so far the present case is concerned, it is covered by the earlier provision. The word 'eligible' has been defined by the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 (255) ITR 273 (SC) . 9. The appellate company has filed a copy of memorandum and articles of Association of Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. the original company, which has since merged with the appellant company. The word 'eligible' has been defined by the Apex Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2002 (255) ITR 273 (SC) . 9. The appellate company has filed a copy of memorandum and articles of Association of Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. the original company, which has since merged with the appellant company. The objects of the company include the following: (a) To lend and advance money, either with or without security and give credit to such persons (including Government) and upon such terms and conditions as the company may think fit. (b) To undertake financial and commercial obligations, transactions and operations of all kinds. (c) To invest any moneys of the company in such investments (other than shares or stock in the company) as may be thought proper and to hold, sell or otherwise deal with such investments. 10. A submission is made on behalf of the respondents that in the present case, there is nothing to show that the business of investment in shares, lending money for interest and manufacture and sale of the tea business are not common in nature and both the businesses are not intertwined and interlaced as was the case in Apollo Tyres (supra). The matter was examined by the appellate authority and the following observations are pertinent: The income from interest is part and parcel of our tea business. The fact that the company's activities gave rise to interest and sundry receipts does not detract from the fact that the company's business remains what it is and has always been, i.e., growing, manufacturing and sale of tea. The said activities did not constitute a separate business distinct from the tea business. The test to be applied for determining whether the business is the same or whether there is inter connection, an interlacing, an interdependence between and a unity embracing the business activities. In the case of the appellant the test is fully satisfied, inter alia, for the reason, the Central and management finance, books of account, staff, premises are the same. Courts have held that where the test is satisfied the chargeability of the incoming receipt under a different head of income is not of any consequence. 11. The latter part of the above observations was not accepted by the Tribunal and accordingly, the full deduction was disallowed. Courts have held that where the test is satisfied the chargeability of the incoming receipt under a different head of income is not of any consequence. 11. The latter part of the above observations was not accepted by the Tribunal and accordingly, the full deduction was disallowed. The question was considered by the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres (supra), where the court held: The fact that it is shown under a different head of income would not deprive the company of its benefit under Section 32AB so long as it is held that the investment in the units of the UTI by the assessee-company is in the course of its "eligible business". Therefore, in our opinion, the dividend income earned by the assessee-company from its investment in the UTI should be included in computing the profits of eligible business under Section 32AB of the Act. 12. In Apollo Tyres (supra), the company was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tyres but at the same time, the company was dealing with sale and purchase of UTI units which was provided for in their memorandum and article of association. The facts of the present case are identical, and only because, the income from the interest and dividend have been shown under different heads, the benefit under Section 32AB of the Act cannot be denied to the appellate company. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Income Tax. Appellate Tribunal is set aside. Both the questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. In favour of Assessee.