Waiver of interest under tax law denied where claimed expenditure was not actually incurred and prior precedent was distinguishable.

Interest relief under Section 234B was refused because the petitioner had not actually incurred the full expenditure claimed, so the factual foundation for allowing the deduction was absent. The earlier decision relied on was distinguished as inapplicable since it did not address a case where the expenditure was not in fact incurred during the relevant year. The Court also found no basis to interfere with the authority's view on the scope of the waiver notification. The challenge to the rejection of waiver therefore failed and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to waiver of interest levied under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the CBDT notification and the earlier decisions relied upon, and whether the impugned rejection of waiver called for interference.

Analysis: The interest claim arose from the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the petitioner had not actually spent the entire amount claimed and, therefore, the foundation for treating the amount as an allowable deduction did not arise. The decision relied on by the petitioner was held inapplicable on facts because it did not decide a case where actual expenditure had not been incurred during the relevant year. The Court also found no basis to interfere with the authority's view on the scope of the notification governing waiver.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of waiver under Section 234B failed and the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed and the revenue's position was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Waiver or deduction-related relief premised on a claimed expenditure cannot be granted unless the expenditure was in fact incurred and established on the facts of the case.

---