9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the claim of investment allowance under section 32A – further, we, uphold the order of the Tribunal in deleting the addition made being payment of interest exceeding 15 per cent, on the deposits X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid interest amounting to Rs. 59,622 and Rs. 63,943 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, respectively, which was more than 15 per cent. The Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings disallowed the investment allowance as also the amount of interest paid in excess over 15 per cent, on the ground that it is against the provisions of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed their appearance on behalf of the respondent-company. We find that the apex court in the case of CIT v. N.C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412, has held that the activity of construction of dam does not amount to manufacture or production of an article or thing and, therefore the undertaking is not entitled for investment allowance. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision we are of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposits) Rules would not be applicable. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Tribunal in deleting the addition made being payment of interest exceeding 15 per cent, on the deposits. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the first question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the second question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
