JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dated 18/07/2014 in ITA No. 2549/Ahd/2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 by which the learned Tribunal has relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 828/2013) and another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (Tax Appeal No. 730/2010) has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee holding that the interest earned by the respondent-assessee on the temporary parking of the funds on the grant received from the Government of Gujarat as a nodal agency for constructing the houses for the Police Department is not liable to tax as income in the hands of the assessee, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law; (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in fact and law in holding that the interest receipt of Rs. 20,42,86,950/- is not taxable in the hands of the assessee? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has failed to consider the findings of the AO and the CIT(A) that the funds remained unutilized by the appellant and were parked in fixed deposits in assessee's own name on long term basis and interest income which accrued out of such long term parking has not been disclosed as regular income under the head income from other sources/in the income and expenditure account but on the contrary has diverted such income directly to the balance sheet under the head WIP? (c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law whether the interest income can still be taxable under Section 56 of the I.T. Act in the case of government companies where there is no profit motive?" 2. We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue and Shri Vivek Chawda, learned advocate appearing for Shri S.N. Divetia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee. We have heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue and Shri Vivek Chawda, learned advocate appearing for Shri S.N. Divetia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 2.1 At the outset, it is required to noted and it is not disputed by Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue that the issue involved in the present Tax Appeal and the proposed substantial questions of law in the present Tax Appeal is squarely covered against the revenue in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2013] 354 ITR 244 (Guj) as well as another decision of this Court in the case of Sar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). In the identical facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Limited v. Income Tax Officer reported in [2013] 354 ITR 201 (Guj) as well as in the case of Sar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) have held that the interest temporarily earned on the grant received from the Government and that too as per the instructions given by the State Government cannot be included in the income of the assessee. Under the circumstances, while passing the impugned order, the learned tribunal has followed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal while allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in the present Tax Appeal. 3. Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.