9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the points that the Tribunal was called upon to decide was the admissibility of deduction of an amount of Rs. 90,039 being a sales-tax penalty levied under s. 36(3) of the Bombay ST Act. The Tribunal, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC), held that such penalty was not an admissible deduction. Thereafter, a mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in MA No. 108(Bom)/83 and by their Order dt. 28th Jan., 1987 they re-called the earlier Order dt. 30th July, 1983. Thus, the matter has been re-fixed for hearing before us. 2. Shri Keshav Prasad relied on the earlier order of the Tribunal. On the other hand, Shri V.H. Patil filed a copy of the decision of E-Bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2688 (Bom)/82 for the asst. yr. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under s. 36(3) was not interest but penalty which is leviable on the basis of law as obtaining on that day, held that the Spl. Bench proceeded on the basis that penalty imposed under s. 36(3) of the ST Act is a penalty and not interest; but what has been held by the Spl. Bench is that though it is a penalty, it is in the nature of interest for not making the payment of sales-tax dues in time. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
