TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by MRS. PRABHA SRIDEVAN J. - The following questions have been raised for consideration: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the penal interest claimed to have been waived by the assessee-company should be allowed as deduction? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome of the assessee. He has also added the excess stock that arose because of the discrepancy in stock, which was not accepted in accounts and kept in abeyance. Against this, an appeal was filed which was allowed. The appellate authority held in favour of the assessee. 3. We will first take up the second question of law. The second question of law does not really arise since we find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion is not answered, since it does not fall for consideration. 5. As regards the first question it is submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the due to revision in terms and conditions relating to levy of penal interest as decided by the board of directors by the assessee an amount of Rs. 8,18,000 was deducted. The appellant claims that there was a decision by the board to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s write off is only for the accounting purposes and there was no actual write off. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that with regard to 1986-87, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had correctly allowed the refund granted to the debtors, i.e., a sum of Rs. 8,18,810 and this should not be interfered with. 6. With regard to the mode of accounting adopted, the assessee's case ....