TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on September 30, 1980, the same would not be applicable. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was justified in allowing the amount of interest claimed by the applicant. – Appeal partly allowed - - - - - Dated:- 8-11-2004 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., P. KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following five questions of law. The first three at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and remaining two at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for opinion to this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reference relates to the assessment year 1981-182. The applicant, Jai Prakash Associates Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in the construction of tunnels, bridges and roads, etc. It claimed investment allowance under section 32A and also relief under section 80J of the Act. It has also claimed carry forward of unabsorbed deficiency under section 80J from earlier years. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the claim on the ground that it does not come within the definition of industrial undertaking. Further, the Income-tax Officer had disallowed the payment of interest to depositors in excess of 15 per cent, per year under the Companies Deposit Rules. However, in appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed the claim of inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as the third question is concerned we find that the provision of rule 3(c) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Amendment Rules, 1981, was enforced on April 1, 1981. The amendment is in the Companies Deposit Rules and not under the Income-tax Act. It will come into operation only on April 1, 1981, and as the accounting period of the applicant ended on September 30, 1980, the same would not be applicable. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was justified in allowing the amount of interest claimed by the applicant. Question No. 3 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
