These are five appeals by assessee involving one common issue of interest paid to Directors on their current account whether is covered by provisions of s. 40A(8) or not. plea of assessee on this issue was that it is squarely covered by decision of Tribunal in one of cases, namely, Digiam Fabrics Ltd. Dt. 14th Oct., 1983. Departmental Representative submitted that Tribunal recently having following Special Bench decision, decided issues in favour of Department. On this issue in view of Special Bench decision which is binding, respectfully following Special Bench decision in case of Kaloomal Shorimal Sachdev Rangwalla (P). Ltd. vs. ITO (First) (1985) 23 TTJ (BOM) 132: (SB) (1985) 14 ITD 248 (Bom) where it was held that since interest is paid on current account of Directors, amounts are to be treated as deposits and, therefore, interest paid on these accounts also fall under provisions of s. 40A(8) and therefore, are rightly disallowable to extent of 15 per cent. We decide this issue against assessee and in favour of Department. For asst. yr. 1978-79 assessee has raised another issue, that is, withdrawal of interest already allowed and paid too assessee in respect of ss. 214 & 244(1A). plea of assessee was since interest was earlier paid, it cannot be withdrawn while plea of Department was interest was wrongly paid and in view of demand raised on assessee, interest was not due to assessee and therefore, had to be withdrawn. On this issue since assessee was not entitled to interest and in fact there was no refund due for which purposes CIT(A) had rightly withdrawn interest. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this ground raised by assessee. For asst. yr. 1979-80 one of grounds is regarding interest under s. 139 and 215 levied wrongly on assessee. On this issue assessee relied on order of this Bench reported in Tax World (1983) Vol. 4 page 262 where it has been specifically held that interest cannot be recovered without there being specific mention in order itself. departmental representative relied on orders of authorities below. On this issue earlier order of Tribunal is to effect that it is for ITO to pass order in respect of charging of interest and not for clerk to pass and demand cannot be raised through calculation sheet. Further it has also been observed that calculation sheet contains calculation on basis of order that is passed and thus order becomes basic document for raising demand or assessee. If there is no mention in body of order, by means of calculation sheet, demand cannot be raised on assessee. For same reason we allow this ground of assessee and delete interest. For asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 question of interest raised has not been pressed on plea that relief has already been provided by ITO and is accordingly becomes infructuous. For asst. yr. 1981-82 plea of assessee was that there are certain expenses which have been disallowed out of travelling expenses, telephone expenses, general expenses, vehicle maintenance and bad debts and considering smallness of expenditure involved, no disallowance was called for. departmental representative relied on orders of authorities below. disallowance of various expenses have been made on ground that details have not been filed and in fact details have been produced before us in respect of travelling does not clearly bring out as to whether entire expenditure is allowable or not. Therefore, as far as expenses are concerned, disallowances are proper and as regards bad debts, since it does not arise out of order of CIT(A), same is infructuous as far as we are concerned. For asst. yr. 1982-83 similar disallowances on expenditure are raised and for reasons mentioned for 1981-82 above, we uphold disallowances for this year also. In result, appeals of assessee for asst. yr. 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83 are dismissed while that of 1979-80 is partly allowed. *** RANGWALA TEXTILE MILLS P. LTD. v. INCOME TAX OFFICER