$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI R. 146 + ITA 300/2003 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus RAKESH GOEL ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 16.11.2015 1. following question of law was framed by Court on 12th February 2004: Whether Tribunal was right in holding that amount retained u/s 132(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 amounts to payment of taxes and should be taken into consideration while calculating interest payable u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. It is fairly stated by Mr. Rohit Madan, counsel for Revenue, that question stands covered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. He refers to decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. ITA No.300/2003 Page 1 of 2 K.K. Marketing (2005) 278 ITR 596 (Del) and decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arun Kapoor (2011) 334 ITR 351. 3. Accordingly, question is answered in affirmative, i.e. in favour of Assessee and against Revenue. 4. appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 16, 2015 mg ITA No.300/2003 Page 2 of 2 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rakesh Goel