TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the respondent as none had appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 2. By this appeal, the Revenue has approached this court on the following questions: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the hon'ble Tribunal's order dated August 25, 2006, is correct in law, in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the amount of Rs. 7,54,960 charged as interest under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ging of interest in case of non-compliance with section 210?" 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue draws our attention to the judgment of this court in CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 119. It is also brought to our attention that unlike sections 115, section 115JA(4) and section 115JB(5) have made provisions for applicability of other provisions of the Act in the matter of com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Finance Ltd. [2004] 265 ITR 119 (Bom). Our attention however, had also been invited to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits [2000] 243 ITR 519 where the Karnataka High Court had taken a different view from the view taken by this court. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court by way of special leave petition. From the order prod....