JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) in ITA No. 826/A/2001 for assessment year 1996-97, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal. 2. The following substantial questions of law were raised by the revenue. "(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the deletion of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80M holding that deduction is allowable on gross dividend? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of interest on account of interest bearing funds by way of credit from bank being diverted to associate concerns as interest free loans? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the deletion of disallowance of interest at Rs. 33,52,000/- on account of interest bearing funds taken from IDBI and advance free of interest to the project/subsidiary companies? (4) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction u/s. 36(1) (viia) and 36(1)(viii) of the I.T. Act has to be granted on the gross total income of all heads and not only the income under the head business or profession? 3. The appeal was admitted only for consideration of 1st and 4th question noted above. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Gujarat Government owned company engaged in the business of providing long term finance for industrial project. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by order dated 11.03.1999 determining the total income at Rs. 7,79,65,305/- as against the returned income declared at Rs. 17179320/-. The assessed income included disallowance of Rs. 48019729/- claimed by the assessee u/s. 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disallowance of interest cost of Rs. 4333500/- on loan to Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd., disallowance of interest at Rs. 3352000/- free loans to subsidiary/project, disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3474686/- free loan u/s. 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) of the IT. Act, 1961, disallowance of waiver of penal interest of Rs. 6,64,504 and disallowance of excess guest house expenses of Rs. 264340/-. On appeal before the CIT (A), the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. 3352000/- free loans to subsidiary/project, disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3474686/- free loan u/s. 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) of the IT. Act, 1961, disallowance of waiver of penal interest of Rs. 6,64,504 and disallowance of excess guest house expenses of Rs. 264340/-. On appeal before the CIT (A), the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority, the revenue preferred appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide impugned order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by CIT(A). Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 6. The issue involved in the present appeal is no longer survives in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal Nos. 1449 of 2005 and 1450 of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2014. Paragraph No. 3 and 3.1 reproduced as under: "3. Question No. 1 raised for consideration in the present Tax appeal is not res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. G.I.I.C. Limited reported in [2010] 325 ITR 597. This Court in the case of very same assessee namely G.I.I.C. in the aforesaid decision has held as under: "6. As can be seen from the facts found concurrently, both by Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal in Assessment Year 1988-89, there was no difference between the gross dividend and net dividend, and therefore, deduction under Section 80M of the Act was allowed on the entire amount of dividend. It was further found that deduction under Section 36 of the Act was available while computing business income under 28 of the Act and the said amount viz., the income from which such deduction is available did not fall under the head Income from other sources. 7. For the year under consideration, learned advocate for the appellant-revenue was not in a position to point tout any distinguishing feature on facts so as to warrant a different view taken from assessee's own case for the year 1988-89. 8. 7. For the year under consideration, learned advocate for the appellant-revenue was not in a position to point tout any distinguishing feature on facts so as to warrant a different view taken from assessee's own case for the year 1988-89. 8. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under Section 80M of the Act was allowable on gross amount of dividend without deducting the proportionate deduction available under Section 36(i)(viii) of the Act." 3.1 Similarly, question No. 2 raised in this appeal is also squarely governed by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat State Financial Corporation reported in [1994] 210 ITR 698 wherein this Court has held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be worked out by applying the proper percentage of the total income computed before deductions under section 36(1)(viii) and Chapter VI-A. 7. In view of the above decision, the questions raised in the present appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT is confirmed. Hence, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed.