TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an amount of Rs. 20,924 in respect of exchange loss was disallowable as capital expenditure? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?" The Revenue has also preferred a reference application against the order Of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and at the instance of the Revenue, the following question was referred to this court for our opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that charging of interest under section 216 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified?" As far as question No. 1 is concerned, the Tribunal, vide i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee's own case for the assessment year 1977-78 and disallowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 26,924 in respect of exchange loss. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 285, wherein it is held that at the time of repayment of loan, there was a fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as a result of which, the assessee had to repay a much lesser amount than he would have otherwise paid. It was further held that this was not a factor which could alter the cost incurred by the assessee for purchase of the asset. The assessee might have raised the funds to purchase the asset by borrowing but what the assessee had paid for it was t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case law on the subject, this court has held: "....that, so far as the facts of this case were concerned, it was not in dispute that the Income-tax Officer not only did not give any reasons for levying interest under section 216 but had also not recorded the requisite finding contemplated by clause (a) of section 216. The assessee did make a grievance before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in this behalf. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the interest was correctly chargeable. The prayer for setting aside the order of the Income-tax Officer was very much implicit in the grievance made by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justifie....