Judgment P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA, J. 1. The above matter is filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A" Bench, in ITA No.1619/Mds/02 dated 12.06.2006 raising the following substantial questions of law. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the omission of the 2nd proviso to Section 43 B is deemed to have retrospective effect? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, deduction of payments to provident fund, made belatedly, beyond the time and grace period under that statute are to be allowed u/s 43 B? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest on delayed payment of income tax need not be added while computing the book profit under section 115JA of the Income Tax Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, interest on delayed payment of income tax is to be considered as part of tax liability or not for the purpose of computing the book profit u/s 115JA ?" 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (i) The assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of Cement. The assessment year is 1998-99 and the corresponding accounting year ended on 31.3.1998. The assessee/respondent filed the return on 26.11.1998 admitting the loss of Rs.2,56,40,388/-. 30% of the book profits was determined at Rs.3,99,24,396/-under section 115JA and tax was also paid. The return of the assessee under section 143(1) (a) and income returned under section 115JA was accepted and refund was also quantified. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3). While completing the assessment, the assessing officer made disallowance under section 43B and reworked the Book profits in terms of Section 115JA of the Act. Aggrieved by that, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. But the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and allowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by that, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. But the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and allowed the claim of the assessee. In respect of deletion of disallowance under Section 43B, the Tribunal allowed the case in favour of the assessee and relating to deletion of interest payment of income-tax to the book profit computation under Section 115JA, the Tribunal allowed the claim in favour of the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue filed the present Appeal raising the above questions of law. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue stated that in respect of question of law Nos.1 and 2, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court Division Bench in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD.((2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)). In respect of question of law Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the learned Standing Counsel argued that the word "tax" includes interest and therefore, the assessing officer is right in including interest. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the first two questions are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. In respect of question Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, he submitted that tax and interest are different and distinct under the Income Tax Act 1961 and therefore, tax cannot be levied under section 115J. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents. 6. (i) In respect of question of law Nos.1 and 2 are concerned there is no dispute that these are covered by the Apex Court judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., cited supra. Therefore, we answer the question of law Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (ii) In respect of question of law Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, whether the word "tax" includes "interest" or not, section 115JA of the Income Tax Act deals with "deemed income relating to certain companies". It was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 with effect from 1.4.1997. (ii) In respect of question of law Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, whether the word "tax" includes "interest" or not, section 115JA of the Income Tax Act deals with "deemed income relating to certain companies". It was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 with effect from 1.4.1997. For our purpose, Explanation is the relevant one which reads as follows: "115JA(1)........................... (2)................................ Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "book profit" means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section(2), as increased by- (a) the amount of income-tax paid or payable, and the provision therefor; or" The word 'tax" has been defined under section 2(43) of the Income tax Act, 1961. In view of the same, whether as per the Explanation (a) the amount of income tax paid or payable and the provision therefor, can it be said that it includes interest also. (iii) It is pertinent to note the words "tax". "interest" and "penalty" have been considered by the Supreme Court in HARSHAD SHANTILAL MEHTA V. CUSTODIAN AND OTHERS ((1998) 231 ITR 871). One of the questions raised before the Apex Court is whether the word "taxes" include penalty or interest. It was considered in Question No.5 which reads as follows: "Question No.5-One other connected question remains : Whether "taxes" under section 11(2)(a) would include interest or penalty as well? We are concerned in the present case with penalty and interest under the Income-Tax Act. Tax, penalty and interest are different concepts under the Income-tax Act. The definition of "tax" under section 2(43) does not include penalty or interest. Similarly, under section 156, it is provided that when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any of other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand as prescribed. The provisions for imposition of penalty and interest are distinct from the provisions for imposition of tax. The learned Special Court Judge, after examining various authorities in paragraphs 51 to 70 of his judgment, has come to the conclusion that neither penalty nor interest can be considered as tax under section 11(2)(a). The provisions for imposition of penalty and interest are distinct from the provisions for imposition of tax. The learned Special Court Judge, after examining various authorities in paragraphs 51 to 70 of his judgment, has come to the conclusion that neither penalty nor interest can be considered as tax under section 11(2)(a). We agree with the reasoning and conclusion drawn by the Special Court in this connection." Considering the principle enunciated in the above Apex Court judgment, it is clear that "tax", "interest" and "penalty" are distinct and different and they are coming under the different concepts of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, definition of "tax" does not include "interest" or "penalty". Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion and held that "tax" does not include "interest" or "penalty". Hence, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. Therefore, we answer the question Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 7. This Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. No costs.