Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (11) TMI 47

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed for the purpose of granting relief under section 80J ? (2) If the answer to question No. 3 is in the positive whether the Tribunal was right in law in refusing to consider the applicant's contention raised in ground No. 5 of the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal ? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant is not entitled to deduct the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, as deduction in computing the total income of the assessee ? (4) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant is not entitled to go on appeal on the Income-tax Officer's refusal to grant interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act ? At the instance of the Revenue : Whether, on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a case which arose in relation to the liability for interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Act. The question of appealability in relation to the liability for interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act has been the subject of consideration by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961. The court considered the question of appealability under section 246(c) of the Act. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in that case related only to the levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 and no other part of the assessment was subject to the appeal. The Supreme Court observed that where an assessee objects to the amount of income assessed or to the amount of tax dete .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e order refusing interest under section 214 was also appealable when the assessment itself was being challenged on other grounds. We are in agreement with this view. Standing counsel for the Revenue, Sri. P. K. Raveendranatha Menon, however, attempted to draw a distinction between cases of levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215, where the assessee is liable for interest and a case under section 214 where the Department becomes liable to pay interest to the assessee for the excess amount of advance tax paid by the assessee. In either case, the liability for the interest, whether of the assessee or of the Department, depends on the final assessment and when that assessment itself is under challenge, we do not find any reason why the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unt of Rs. 47,67,501. Accordingly, he allowed a development rebate of Rs. 11,91,875 as against Rs. 13,26,440 claimed. The disallowance was based on the provisions of section 16(c) of the Finance Act, 1974. The provisions of section 33 of the Income-tax Act allowing development rebate were operative only up to May 31, 1974, by virtue of Notification No. 2167 issued by the Government of India on May 28, 1971. But section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, extended the benefit to a limited extent and in particular cases. We are concerned with cases covered by clause (c) of the section. It provided that development rebate will be allowed in respect of any machinery or plant installed by any assessee after May 31, 1974, but before the first day of Jun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the assessee had taken steps for the manufacture of the plant and machinery before December 1, 1973, and hence the claim should have been allowed in toto to the extent of Rs. 13,26,440. We do not find our way to accept the contention of the assessee. The assessee becomes entitled to the development rebate under the extension granted by section 16 of the Finance Act, 1974, in a case where the machinery had been manufactured in undertakings owned by it and steps in that direction had been taken before December 1, 1973. The case set up by the assessee was that it had manufactured these items, a case which found acceptance with the Tribunal. But, in doing so, we are afraid the Tribunal has overlooked the clear terms of sub-clause (c) of secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates