TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als)-II, Coimbatore dated 28.4.2006. 2. The first ground in this appeal is that the Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing 90% of the gross interest received from banks on deposits for securing export credit facilities, from the purview of 'profits of business' for computing deduction U/S.80HHC of the Income-tax Act. 1961. 3. We have heard both the parties. In our opinion this issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 234B is not valid as the Assessee cannot be made to pay interest based on retrospective amendment. According to the Assessee, this is not valid as the Assessee cannot be made to pay interest based on the retrospective amendment under sec.80HHC of the Act 5. We have heard both the parties. We find that this issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal dated 11.1.2008 in the case of M/s. Well K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The fifth proviso was inserted to section 80HHC by Taxation Laws(Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1992. It was therefore impossible on the part of the assessee to anticipate the incidence of tax on account of this amendment. My attention was invited on the basic tenet of law canonised in the dictum: LEX NON COGIT AD IMPOSSIBILIA. As per this maxim law cannot compel you to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to deduct VRS payments. Therefore, the assessee could not have done anything other than to estimate the liability to pay advance tax on the basis of existing provisions. We are of the considered opinion that in such situation it cannot be said that the assessee was liable to pay advance tax. Once we come to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay-advance tax, there is no questio....