Court denies section 80J relief, rules no appeal for interest order.

The court ruled against the assessee, denying relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act for a new wing in a hotel due to not meeting the requirement of fifty guest rooms with attached bathrooms. Additionally, the court held that no appeal lies against an order for interest under section 215 of the Act, deciding both issues against the assessee and awarding costs to the Commissioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act for a new wing added in a hotel.
2. Maintainability of an appeal against an order directing the levy of interest under section 215 of the Act.

Entitlement to Relief under Section 80J:
The case involved the assessee, a limited company operating a five-star hotel in Agra, seeking relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act for a new wing added to the hotel. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the relief, stating that the business of the new wing was not recognized by the Central Government. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) ruled that the benefit of section 80J could only be granted if the new wing had fifty separate guest rooms with attached bathrooms, while the wing in question had only forty rooms. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed the disallowance. The court analyzed the conditions under section 80J, emphasizing the need to fulfill all conditions, particularly the requirement of fifty guest rooms with attached bathrooms for hotels in cities with a population exceeding five lakhs. The court held that the assessee's claim did not meet the conditions specified in the rule, as the new wing did not have the required number of rooms. Consequently, the court ruled against the assessee, denying the relief under section 80J for the capital employed in the new wing.

Maintainability of Appeal against Order for Interest under Section 215:
Regarding the second issue, the court referenced a Full Bench decision stating that no appeal lies against an order directing the levy of penal interest under section 215 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the court answered the second question in the negative and in favor of the revenue. Ultimately, both questions were decided against the assessee, with the Commissioner being awarded costs of Rs. 250.

---