TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... included the interest received on enhanced compensation in the assessment year while estimating his income for the purposes of calculation of advance tax for the relevant years. Therefore, there was no question of levying interest u/s 234B. See CIT vs. Anand Prakash (2009 (2) TMI 30 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - Decided in favor of assessee - ITA No.4775 /DEL/ 2011 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2012 - Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, And Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, JJ. ASSESSEE BY :Shri Ajay Vohra, Advocate REVENUE BY :Shri Mohnish Verma, CIT, DR. ORDER PER J. Sudhakar. Reddy, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- XXIX, New Delhi dated 29.07.2011. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in pursuance of any law for the time being in force or had been awarded by the Central or State Government in any other manner, would be treated as single undertaking . 3.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was pointed out by the Id AO to the appellant that the Finance (No. 2) Act,2009, approved by the Parliament on 19.08.2009, had amended the provisions of sub-section (9) of section 80-IB of the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. The appellant submitted a revised computation of income vide letter dated 10.11.2010 withdrawing its claim fro deduction u/s 80- IB. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 9,91,11,293/- . The Id. AO also charged interest of Rs. 63,33,588/- u/s 234B of the Act. The Id. AO ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no dispute, that the assessee was liable for deduction u/s 80 IB (9) of the Act as on the date of filing of the return of income. He pointed out that the Revenue has allowed deduction to the assessee in the earlier years. He submitted that it was only due to the retrospective amendment by insertion of Explanation to Section 80 IB (9) by Finance Act (No.2) 2009, with effect from 01.04.2000, that the assessee had become not liable for the exemption u/s 80 IB (9). He relied on the following propositions: (a) Interest u/s 234 B cannot be levied when there is change in law with retrospective effect. For this proposition he relied on the following case laws: (i) Emami Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 337 ITR 470 (Cal). (ii) CIT vs. Anand Prakash 316 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision of law were nil, there were no advance tax payable within the last day of the financial year preceding the relevant assessment year as provided in sections 207 and 208 or within the dates indicated in section 211. Interest could not be levied under sections 234B and 234C. 8. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anand Prakash 316 ITR 141 (Del) held as follows :- That the conclusion of the Tribunal that the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act was penal in nature was incorrect. Levy of interest under section 234B was compensatory in nature. The ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal as regards deletion of the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act could not be interfered w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
