cross appeals by assessee and Revenue emerge out of assessment for asst. yr. 1979-80. assessee is industrial company engaged in business of taking contracts and executing works of construction of dams, bridges, roads, building both in India and abroad. During material accounting year, it had done some engineering work abroad. It may be convenient to take up first Revenue's appeal. first ground is in regard to investment allowance claimed under s. 32A. ITO declined relief in this behalf. But, in appeal, it was held by CIT(A) that assessee is entitled to investment allowance and to reach that conclusion reliance has been placed upon decision of Tribunal in case of Progressive Engineering Company vs. ITO (since reported in (1983) 3 ITD 172 (Hyd)). Claim for investment allowance had also been made in respect of dumpers and that was denied by authorities below on reason that they are transport vehicles falling within proviso (2)(b) to s. 32A. In this behalf, assessee is in appeal and we will consider that question when we take up that appeal. Shri R.d. Mahadeshwar, ld. Departmental representative mainly depended upon decision of Bombay High Court in case of assessee itself CIT vs. Sha Construction Co. Ltd. (1982) 30 CTR (Bom) 245: (1983) 142 ITR 696 (Bom) and contended that investment allowance cannot be granted. In this connection, we were also invited to decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. N.U.C. Pvt. Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 377 (Bom). On behalf of assessee, Shri S.P. Mehra, replied that while decision relied upon on behalf of Revenue do not directly deal with case of investment allowance under s. 32A. He proceeded to submit that decision of Special bench of Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Hydle Constructions (P) Ltd. (1983) 6 ITD 575 (Del) (SB) and decision of Hyderbad Bench of Tribunal in case of Progressive Engineering Co. vs. ITO (1983) 3 ITD 172 (Hyd) directly answer this question. He also invited out attention to decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pressure Milling Co. (1980) 126 itr 333 (Bom) and also decision of th Orissa High Court in case of CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1980) 122 ITR 212 (Ori). We have gone through authorities and in our view CIT vs. Shah Construction Co. Ltd. (1982) 30 CTR (Bom) 245: (1983) 142 ITR 696 (Bom) (supra) is not authority to this appeal where facts and circumstances are entirely different. In CIT vs. Shah Construction Co. Ltd. (1982) 30 CTR (Bom) 245: (1983) 142 ITR 696 (Bom) (supra), question was whether assessee was entitled to certain rebate so as to fall within proviso (iii) (A). Of Para D of Property. II to Sch. I of Finance Act, 1964. According to that......... proviso, assessee was to have carried on activity of manufacture or processing of goods assessee who was carrying on business activity of constructing dams, bridges etc., was held to be not mainly engaged in manufacture of proceeding of goods. In CIT vs. N.U.C. private Ltd. (1980) 126 ITR 377 (Bom), question was whether assessee in that case was industrial company wihin meaning of s. 2(7)(D) of Finance Act, 1966. Here also question was whether it was in industrial company engaged in manufacture or processing of goods. Holding that assessee is not engaged in that activity of manufacture of processing of goods would not be sufficient to result in rejection of claim for investment allowance under s.32A. According to cl. (2)(B)(iii) of s. 32A, it is sufficient if assessee is industrial undertaking engaged in "business of construction, manufacture of production of any article or thing, not being article or thing specified in list in Elevanth Schedule" (the words stated in inverted comas are those found in statute). Even if industrial under taking is not engaged in business of manufacture or production of article of thing, it can make valid claim for investment allowance if it is engaged in business of construction of any article or thing. word "construction" was not in provisions which were interpreted by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay either in (1983) 142 ITR 696 (Bom) or (1980) 126 ITR 377 (Bom) (supra). For these reasons, we are of view that authorities relied upon by Shri Mahadeshwar are not applicable in deciding question posed before us. It is clear from record that business activity of assessee is not one specified in list in Eleventh Schedule. SO we are now to see whether business of constructing dams, bridges, buildings etc., is business of construction of any articles or thing, we may now alone say that same type of business was carried on by Progressive Engg. Co. (Supra) and it was held to be entitled to investment allowance by Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal. facts are identical. Special Bench of Tribunal has in Hydle Construction case (1983) 6 ITD 575 (Del) held that assessee in that case which was also carrying on civil engineering construction works was eligible for investment allowance. According to these two decisions of Tribunal, constructing dam, bridge or any other building is article or thing and that business of construction is sufficient to meet requirements of cl. 2(iii) of s. 32A. Referring to CIT vs. Pressure Pilling Co. (1980) 126 ITR 333 (Bom), assessee in case was carrying on business of laying foundations of building by specialised patented method known as "pressure piling" and claimed relied under s. 80J. Their Lordships held that assessee was manufacturing article though it finally formed part of construction ultimately made and that it was entitled to s. 80J relief. In other words, assessee in that case was held to have engaged in manufacture or production of article within meaning of s. 84(2)(iii) of IT Act, 1961 (Now s. 80J). It is true that (1980) 126 ITR 333 (Bom), is considered and explained in (1983) 142 ITR 696 (Bom). But even so, as already pointed out by us word "construction" found in s. 32A was not present in any of provisions interpreted by their Lordships in solving questions referred to them. It is in this respect we find that (1983) 3 ITD 172 (Hyd and (1983) 6 ITD 575 (Del) are directly applicable to this appeal by Revenue. assessee is carrying on business of civil engineering work which involves construction and civil engineering activity bring forth dams, bridges, building etc., and they can be said to be thing so as to fulfil requirement of 32A(2)(iii). For all reasons, we are of view that assessee was rightly held to be entitled to investment allowance and we confirm finding of CIT(A) in this behalf. second ground raised by Revenue is in regard to foreign exchange reserve. As mentioned earlier, assessee has taken up contract work in Middle East Countries. Against such contracts, advances had to be adjusted against running bills submitted by assessee from time to time. At end of against running bills submitted by assessee from time to time. At end of accounting year certain foreign country had remained in reserve and for account purposes they were converted into rupees at rate prevailing at end of year. This was essentially for account purposes. sum of Rs. 4,59,098 was in foreign exchange reserve account and this was brought to tax b y ITO. In appeal, assessee succeeded. Having heard both parties and considering facts and circumstances of case, we are inclined to affirm orde of CIT(A), advances received in foreign currency had n o t been adjusted during accounting year. foreign currency had remained outside India and no conversion had taken place. So far as those facts are concerned, there cannot be any dispute. ld. Departmental representative relieved upon decision of Supreme Court in case of of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 155: (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC) which has also been considered by first appellate authority. rule enunciated in this case i s not applicable as facts are entirely different. As pointed out by first appellate authority, in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. (Supra), foreign currency had been held by assessee and conversion had taken place. Such situation does not obtain here at all. advances had to be adjusted on future bills. Until such adjustments take place, money does not assume character of income. Unless adjustment is made and receipt results either in profit or loss, question of taxing does not arise. It is only for accounting purposes foreign currency reserve had been taken into account and by that it cannot be said that assessee had made income of that foreign currency. In our opinion, view taken by first appellate authority is in accordance with law and, therefore, no interference is called upon. deletion of addition of Rs. 4,59,098 is, therefore, confirmed. third ground raised by Revenue is in regard to relief under s. 80-O. In same context we may also consider ground number 5 in assessee's appeal which is also in regard to relief under s. 80-O. assessee had executed contract of construction of Liquid Sulphur Terminal at Iraq. agreement of work had been approved by CBDT vide its letter dt. 11th Jan., 1980, for purpose of s. 80-O. amount remitted to India during accounting year was Rs. 1,20,15,512. It was claim of assessee that it was entitled to deduction of like amount under s. 80-O. ITO computed and relief under this provision at Rs. 60,07,756, This was on basis of letter of CBDT dt. 11th Jan., 1980. According to ITO, 50 per cent of payment received by assessee was attributable to recovery of expenses incurred by it in connection with supply of equipments and only remaining 50 per cent of amount that had been sent to India was taken as eligible for relief under s. 80-O, according to Board's circular dt. 23rd Dec., 1975. In this connection, CIT(A) was of view that ITO had not applied his mind to question and he set aside same and restored issued to him (ITO) with direction to re-examine same in light of observation made in appellate order. Against this part of order, both Revenue and assessee feel aggrieved. On behalf of Revenue, it was contended that hte CIT(A) was wrong in setting aside issue and sending matter back to ITO when all material was on record and that issue could have been once and for all decided effectively. assessee contended that remand has resulted in setting aside relief already granted by ITO apart from plea that assessee was entitled to full allowance of Rs. 1,20,15.512 instead to 50 per cent of same. After careful consideration of matter, we are of view that remand to ITO was not proper. CBDT's letter dt. 11th Jan., 1980 was before first appellate authority. circular dt. 23rd Dec., 1975 is also available for consultation with regard to factual aspects. That assessee remitted to India Rs. 1,20,15,512 during accounting year, there is no dispute at all. question of granting of relief under s. 80-O has to be decided only on proper consideration of CBDT's letter dt. 11th Jan., 1980 and its circular dt. 23rd Dec., 1975. Therefore, there was no justification for first appellate authority to remit issue to ITO and we are, therefore, of view that same is required to be set aside here. On above mentioned reasons, remand order is set aside and we direct that issue pertaining to s. 80-O shall be considered by CIT(A) on merits and he shall quantify of deduction under s. 80-O after affording opportunity to assessee of being heard. We have thus disposed of all grounds raised in appeal by Revenue. Now taking up appeal by assessee, there are five grounds in all, last (5) being relating to relief under s. 80-O. This, we have already all, last (5) being relating to relief under s. 80-O. This, we have already considered in para 9 and our conclusion is found recorded in para 10. What remains to be considered is only grounds No. 1 to 4 and we take up in order in which they are set out in memorandum of appeal. first ground is in regard to disallowance of investment allowance in regard to dumpers. claim in regard to dumper was to extent of Rs. 1,19,930. ITO rejected claim and that was confirmed by CIT(A) for identical reasons. authorities below are of view that there dumpers are road transport vehicles so to come within second proviso to s. 32A(i) to be disentitled to this allowance. These dumpers are automobiles used for shifting or transporting earth removed during course of construction work. Shri Mehta contended that they are vehicles of special type and, in this connection, our attention was invited to decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 434 (Cal). Shri Mahadeshwar, ld. Departmental representative, argued that these dumpers are vehicles registered under Motor Vehicles Act and there is no reason to look upon them as not falling within classification of "Road Transport Vehicles" specified in proviso (b) to s. 32A(1). We have already held that assessee is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A. point is whether dumpers are road transport vehicles so as to fall under class specified in proviso (b) to s. 32A (1). As explained in case of Orissa Mineral Department Co. Ltd. (Supra) what is necessary for us to see is whether these dumpers belong to category of earth moving machinery or in category of ordinary motor vehicles and know this exact function of dumpers will provide answer. As it was explained to us, dumpers, used by assessee before us, are to remove earth excavated at site while laying foundation for civil engineering work and it is part of construction activity. It does work of shovelling excavated earth in quicker and expeditious manner. It cannot be classified as ordinary transport vehicle because its function is of specialised type suitable to particular activity in task of construction work. With regard to Shri Mahadeshwar's argument that dumpers are registered under Motor Vehicle Act, same is not relevant as pointed out by their Lordships in (1979) 117 ITR 434 (Cal). function of dumpers decide issue. In our view, dumpers of assessee are of specialised category and, hence we, hold that dumpers are also eligible for investment allowance as it is directly used in business of construction, namely, construction of project or dam for purpose of removing earth. ground No. 1 in assessee's appeal is, therefore, held in favour of assessee and against Revenue. Second ground is in regard to disallowance of interest paid to IT Department. assessee had paid interest of Rs. 2,34,651 and this payment h d to be made because of delayed payment of income-tax. assessee claimed this as business expenditure and that was not allowed by authorities below. CIT(A) has considered this aspect in para 3 of his order. As pointed out by him, s. 80V provides for deduction in respect of interest paid by assessee on monies borrowed for payment of income-tax. Income-tax liability itself is not allowance deduction and, as such interest paid for delayed payment of income-tax cannot be prior allowed since character of interest amount is same as principal liability. In this connection, decision of Delhi High Court in case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. (1985) 45 CTR (Del) 1: (1985) 153 ITR 275 (Del), is in point. This authority clearly lays down that interest paid for delayed payment of tax would take same colour as original amount liable to be paid. Interest charged by Department on account of default in payment of Income-tax cannot be brought within ambit of s. 80V. This can certainly be not treated as business expenditure and, in our opinion, authorities below rightly disallowed claim. revenue succeeds and assessee fails in regard to ground No. 2. third ground raised by assessee is in regard to weighted deduction claimed under s. 35B. assessee had made claim of Rs. 70,66,933. ITO had considered this expenditure and found that assessee was eligible only to extent of Rs. 13,10,093. This aspect of case was considered by t h e CIT(A) in para 5 of impugned order. CIT(A) observes that disallowance was "owing to wrong interpretation of ITO that provision was operative only from 1st April, 1981." CIT(A) disagreed on this question and according to his conclusion claim of assessee was considerable on merits. He, therefore, registered matter to ITO for detailed scrutiny of claim and its disposal on merits in accordance with law. At time of hearing both ld. counsel for assessee and ld. Departmental representative submitted that all materials pertaining to claim are on record and that this question may also be considered by CIT(A) himself instead of ITO as claim in regard to s. 80-O is being remanded to CIT(A) for fresh look. It would be improper if remand is to be made to different forums upon different questions as it will lead to confusion and multiplicity of proceedings. He, therefore, feels it proper that this question relating to claim of assessee under s. 35B should also be examined by CIT(A) and we, therefore set aside remand order passed by him and direct CIT(A) to take up this question, consider same on merits and dispose of same according to law. fourth found is in regard to disallowance of sum of Rs. 2,22,300. This amount was claimed by assessee as business loss. authorities below did not agree. assessee in contending that it should have been treated as revenue loss. facts are that assessee had placed order for purchase of machinery and in that behalf security deposit of Rs. 2,22,300 had been made with purchaser. Owning to inability of assessee, machine was not purchased and purchaser forfeited amount. That is how amount was lost and assessee is asking for same to be treated as trading loss. If purpose had gone forward, it would have resulted in acquisition of capital assets. payments, therefore, was in capital filed. This infructuous expenditure cannot assume different complexion merely because contract of purchase fall through. Consequently, we hold that forfeiture had resulted only in capital loss and same cannot be treated as revenue loss. disallowance is, therefore, confirmed. In result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed except in regard to ground No. 3 pertaining to relief under s. 80-O which is remanded to first appellate authority for fresh decision on merits. appeal by assessee is allowed in part. *** SHAH CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER