9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for ready reference: "3.1 The appellant is a non-resident company based is Republic of Panama. It filed a return of income declaring totalincome of Rs.9,24,01,820/- u/s115JB of the act on 30.09.2009. The income computed as per the normal provisions of the Act was Rs. 88,10,450/-. The appellant was engaged in the business of exploration and development of oil fields. It entered into a production sharing contract on 16.06.1995 with Government of India, Oil India Ltd. (Oil) and Geo Empro Petroleum Ltd. with respect to contract area identified as Kharsang Field. 3.2 The appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 9,74,01,117/- u/s 80-IB of the Act in respect of five new wells drilled in Kharsang filed during the year under assessment on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT (A) applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated - 330 ITR 578 (Del) and granted relief to the assessee. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal on the following ground : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the interest under section 234 B is not chargeable in the case on the revised computation of income at a higher figure made in the light of retrospective amendment to section 80 IB by Finance Act (2) of 2009, even though the provisions of the said section clearly provide for charging of such interest. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend, modify or alter an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for deduction of tax u/s 195 of the Act, and the assessee had no obligation to pay advance tax. For this proposition, he relied on Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated, 330 ITR 578 (Del). 6. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the assessee has filed its return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008. Finance Act (No.2) of 2009, introduced Explanation to section 80IB (9) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. Parliament passed the Act on 19.08.2009. Subsequently, the assessee lost his entitlement for exemption u/s 80IB (9). The issue is whether the assessee is liable for payment of interest u/s 234B under these circumstances, when an addition to income had arose consequent to withdrawal of claim f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onging to the Government and the interest payable on account of enhanced compensation was unknown to the assessee on the date of completion of assessment. Therefore, the assessee could not have included the interest received on enhanced compensation in the assessment year while estimating his income for the purposes of calculation of advance tax for the relevant years. The Government had delayed the payment of compensation to the assessee and there was no loss to the Revenue. Therefore, there was no question of levying interest under section 234B of the Act." 9. Following propositions laid down in these case laws, we have to necessarily hold that the assessee is not liable for interest u/s 234B. 10. We also uphold the findings of the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
