2012 (5) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd and the mention of the proviso of law under which such interest is charged are two different things. - Decided in favor of assessee. Investment allowance under section 32A (1) - machinery installed in Hotel - Industrial Undertaking - held that:- Matter remanded back.
Sunil Ambwani, Pankaj Mithal, JJ. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the department. Shri Ashish Bansal appears for the assessee. In both the income tax appeal Nos.81 and 82 of 2002 the department has raised following substantial questions of law to be considered by the Court:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was an Industrial Undertaki .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion covers the issue, the A.O. should not ignore it. Shri A.N. Mahajan submits that in Hotel and Allied Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2000 (245) ITR 538 the Supreme Court has decided the question regarding investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. We are of the opinion that the A.O. is required to consider all the cases, which are cited before him. On the third question it is submitted by Shri A.N. Mahajan that in para 16 of the order of the Tribunal the plea that the interest under Section 234 (B) cannot be charged unless it is included in the assessment order or in the extra sheet or additional sheet attached with the assessment order in relation to computation and charging of interest. Shri Mahaj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ttlement Commissioner was involved. The Supreme Court held that once charging interest is mandatory, even the Settlement Commissioner cannot allow waiver. In Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Insilco Ltd., 2005 (278) ITR 1 (SC) the Supreme Court remanded the matter to decide whether the law laid down in Ranchi Club has been changed by the decision of the case in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala. In CIT Vs. Ranchi Club Ltd., (2001) 247 ITR 209 decided by the three judges of the Supreme Court, the SLP was dismissed on merits. The facts stated in the note published in ITR demonstrate that the High Court had held that the order of the assessing authority in the assessment order to charge interest is to be specific and clear and the assessee must be made to kno .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X