TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in ground No. 1(a) that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer who had disallowed Rs.22,93,95,980/- being expenditure incurred on account of "Power Purchase Price" payable to Uttar Pradesh power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). Grounds no. 3 and 4 are related to charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Ground no. 2 is related to the credit of advance tax and self assessment tax paid by the assessee company and ground no. 5 is a pro forma ground which needs no adjudication. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused entire record before us and carefully considered the same. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the same que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. In this view, the appeals were decided in favour of the revenue. 2.2 It is argued that the only difference in facts is that in assessment year 1994-95 the amount charged by UPSEB in the bills was debited to profit and loss account while in later years only a part was debited to the profit and loss account and the remaining was claimed separately in the statement of income. This difference in treatment does not lead to any difference in inference about accrual of the liability as held in the case of Kedar Nath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC) and Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT, 227 ITR 172 (SC). It is further argued that in view of the decision of Special Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. This was done in the subsequent order. Therefore, we are of the view that the subsequent decision should be followed in this case. Accordingly, following this decision, the matter is decided in favour of the revenue. Thus, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 5. In so far as charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C is concerned, the ld. CIT, DR relied on the decision in the case of JCIT Vs. Rolta India Ltd, (2011) 330 ITR 470 (SC). It has been decided that for the purpose of levy of interest u/s 234B "assessed tax" means the tax assessed on regular assessment. It has been further held that what applicable in respect of section 234B is also applicable in respect of section 234C even when assessment is made u/s 115JA. This clearly leads ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the decision of the Tribunal in subsequent years should be followed as a rule of consistency because the recommendations of the Nair Committee are still in force. The DR also submitted that now this matter is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the later decisions of the Tribunal may be followed. 6. In view of above submissions and ITAT Delhi 'E' Bench judgment for AY 2007-08 in asessee's own case, we are of the view that subsequent decision of the Tribunal considered all the facts and circumstances related to the issue in question which were available till that point of time. The first decision of the Tribunal for AY 1994-95 was delivered without considering the recommendations of the Nair Committee but the same was cons....