9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "), the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 4,175 paid as interest under s. 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, was not an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1972] 85 ITR 320. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee moved the Tribunal for referring the question of law arising out of the said order to this court. Hence, this reference. We have heard Shri S. M. Mehta, the learned counsel for the assessee, and Shri R. N. Surolia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Balrampur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 227 (Cal) and of the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 732. After noticing the aforesaid decision, it has been held by this court that the interest payable under s. 11B of the Sales Tax Act, is not a penalty but a revenue expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
