Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos.1520 & 1521/Mds/2002 dated 35. 2006 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively, raising the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order under Section 154 was wrong as the issue was a debatable one, when the issue has been clearly settled by orders of the High Court and Supreme Court?" 2. The brief facts led to the filing of the above appeals are as under. The assessee is engaged in the business of running hotels. For the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98, the assessee filed the returns claiming relief under Section 80HHD of the Act and the same was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Finding that the deduction under Section 80HHD was computed including the interest earned on short term deposits, the Assessing Officer passed an order of rectification that the interest received is taxable under the head income from other sources. Hence, the assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner dismissed the appeals on the ground that the Assessing Officer had rightly rectified the assessment. On further appeals preferred by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal, holding that the Assessing Officer has exceeded in his jurisdiction while acting under Section 154 of the Act, as the issue was a debatable one, allowed the appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 3. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sharp Industries (282 ITR 336), where the claim of the assessee therein with regard to deduction under Sections 80HHC and 80I of the Act was disallowed under Section 154 of the Act, this Court has held that the claim of the assessee could not be disallowed in a proceeding under Section 154 of the Act, especially when the interest income was included in the profit of the business. 4. Applying the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.