2012 (5) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rrect in law in holding that the assessee was an Industrial Undertaking for the purpose of business of manufacture or production of any article or thing and consequently entitled to investment allowance under section 32A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside when in fact machinery installed in Hotel is not entitled to Investment Allowance? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 particularly when charging of interest under that section is mandatory for default....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment order in relation to computation and charging of interest. Shri Mahajan submits that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon Ranchi Club Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. is not correct. He submits that the charging of interest under Section 243A, 243B and 243C is mandatory. He has relied upon the judgments in CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., 2001 (252) ITR 1, which has been followed by the Kerala High Court in Dr. R.P. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, (2009) 182 Taxman 305 (Ker.) and in M/s Nilgiri Sleepers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax I, Patna, 2010 Tax LR 105 (Pat.). A perusal of the judgments cited by Shri Mahajan leads to the conclusion that the charging of interest after the amendment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....harge interest is to be specific and clear and the assessee must be made to know that the assessing officer after applying its mind has ordered charging of interest. We do not find that the judgment in Ranchi Club Ltd. has either been expressly overruled or any different view has been taken in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala's case. We also do not find force in the argument advanced by Shri Mahajan that even if assessment order or computation sheets do not provide for interest, since interest is mandatory, it can be charged in the demand notice, which according to Shri Mahajan is signed by the Assessing Officer. Even if any provision of law is mandatory and provides for charging of tax or interest, the view taken in Ranchi Club Ltd. is that such charge....