2013 (10) TMI 1181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowing substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs.9,71,360/- retained by the authorities, could not be treated as assessee's income for the year despite the fact that income was being assessed on accrual basis? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding that interest u/s 234-B of the I.T.Act was not chargeable on the amount of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA notwithstanding the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT had upheld the disallowance of deduction u/s 80-IA?" Counsel for the revenue fairly concedes that the first substantial question of law is covered again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s covered against the revenue by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA No.242 of 2006 "The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula V/s M/s Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula", decided on 20.04.2007, and the CIT(A) and the ITAT have relied upon the above judgment while holding in favour of the assess, the appeal may be dismissed. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, explanation to Section 80-IA of the Act came into force under Finance Act, 2007 but with retrospective effect. The assessee was, therefore, liable to deposit advance tax. The question that arises is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest? The CIT (A) has, while setting aside interest levied by the Assessing Officer....