New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Export goods from other manufacturer Service tax applicability on Directors remuneration Payment Made in Wrong Code TDS Payment done 94C instead of 94J Service tax on transport of coal to bio power plant court fee for filing appeal before Commssioner (Appeals) Re: Labour of supply works Service Tax on Services provided in J & K state interest rate on vat tax paid by late Revision/amendment in Shipping Bill

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 140A

 

Income Tax


Cases for Section: 140A
 
Showing 31 to 45 of 121 Records
 

2003 (12) TMI 19 - DELHI High Court

Rajesh Kumar Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax.

By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the levy of penalty u/s 140A(3), for failure on his part to pay the self-assessment tax on the basis of the returned income - As regards the question whether the non-payment of tax stems from a reasonabl ......

2003 (5) TMI 40 - KARNATAKA High Court

Y. Nenugopala Reddy Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another.

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - appellant in order to evaluate the benefits of the Scheme filed a declaration under section 88 of the Scheme on December 3. 1998, before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-II Bangalore, the first respondent herein w ......

2003 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Shelly Products And Another

Whether the respondents are entitled to the refund of income-tax paid by them by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax in the event of the assessment framed being nullified by the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction and there being no possibi ......

2003 (3) TMI 285 - ITAT DELHI-E

Sutlej Industries Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Refund ......

........... n 244A/other relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act on the amount of self-assessment tax paid, which became refundable under section 143(1)(a)/143(1B) as per provisions of Income-tax Act from the date of payment of such tax. 14. The facts of this year are similar to those for assessment year 1994-95 as discussed above with the only distinction that in this year the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) unlike in the assessment year 1994-95 when the assessment was made under section 143(3). Both the sides are agreeable that the decision in the assessment year 1994-95 will be fully applicable to this year as well because making assessment under section 143(3) and issuing of intimation under section 143(1)(a) would not alter the situation in so far as the granting of interest under section 244A is concerned. Following our view in the foregoing paras we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this year also. 15. In the result this appeal also stands dismissed.

2002 (4) TMI 221 - ITAT DELHI-A

RR. Holdings (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Refund, Interest On Refund ......

........... acts of the present case, we do not treat as an order under section 143(3). 34. In the final analysis, we uphold the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with reference to I.T.A. No. 1705 (Delhi) of 1999. We must, however, mention that no specific arguments were advanced by the parties on the view expressed by the CIT (Appeals) about the non-maintainability of the appeal but deciding at length on merits and we have also done likewise. We, therefore, say nothing on ground No. 7 in the assessee s appeal. 35. In I.T.A. No. 4268 (Delhi) of 1998, a number of grounds have been raised, but most of these are a repeat of those already raised in the earlier appeal and considered. No independent arguments are advanced by the parties and we really do not have to say anything further in the matter. In line with the view already expressed, the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) stands confirmed. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

2002 (2) TMI 40 - KARNATAKA High Court

Mangilal S. Jain Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another.

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Part Payments - the only question that arises for consideration is whether the computation under the KVS Scheme by the appellant is correct or whether the computation made by the respondent is correct. This involves resolut ......

2002 (1) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN High Court

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus HM Lalwani.

Self-Assessment - Penalty - Default In Payment - "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the p ......

2001 (7) TMI 260 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. Versus Smt. Nina Arora.

Interest Chargeable, Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Records ......

........... ard the plain meaning of the words used in the section in order to meet a potential injustice. 10. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Union Home Products Ltd. v. Union of India 1995 215 ITR 758 has observed, repelling a similar contention based on hardship involved in section 234A, that in actual application of these provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C, there may be situations where an assessee may render itself liable to payment of interest under each of these provisions simultaneously for the time period but this would not alter the basic character of the levy being compensatory. Thus, the supposed hardships or inequitable consequences claimed by the learned counsel would not empower an appellate authority to modify or rewrite the statutory provision. The contentions of the learned counsel on this ground are, therefore, without merit and are rejected. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we hereby reverse the findings of the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the Revenue.

2001 (7) TMI 259 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. Versus Smt. Nina Arora.

Interest Chargeable, Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Records ......

........... ard the plain meaning of the words used in the section in order to meet a potential injustice. 10. The Karnataka High Court in the case of Union Home Products Ltd. v. Union of India 1995 215 ITR 758 has observed, repelling a similar contention based on hardship involved in section 234A, that in actual application of these provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C, there may be situations where an assessee may render itself liable to payment of interest under each of these provisions simultaneously for the time period but this would not alter the basic character of the levy being compensatory. Thus, the supposed hardships or inequitable consequences claimed by the learned counsel would not empower an appellate authority to modify or rewrite the statutory provision. The contentions of the learned counsel on this ground are, therefore, without merit and are rejected. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we hereby reverse the findings of the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the Revenue.

2001 (5) TMI 33 - DELHI High Court

Commissioner of Income Tax. Versus Orissa Cement Limited.

Advance Tax, Self-Assessment, Excess Payment of Advance-tax ......

........... to the assessment year 1976-77. We find that the Tribunal relied on the decision of this court in National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation o f India Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 130 ITR 928 to grant relief to the assessee in terms of section 214 of the Act. The issue involved appears to have been considered by the apex court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1995 216 ITR 759. In our considered view it would be appropriate if the Tribunal hears the appeal afresh and decides the matter keeping in view the guidelines and the position as summarised in Modi Industries case 1995 216 ITR 759 (SC). Ordered accordingly. The reference stands disposed of.

2001 (2) TMI 49 - MADRAS High Court

Commissioner of Income Tax. Versus Ashok Leyland Ltd.

Refund, Self-Assessment, Interest ......

........... case of Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1995 216 ITR 759, where in it was held that . . . if any refund was payable pursuant to the order of regular assessment, that had to be paid in accordance with the provisions of section 243 of Chapter XIX of the Act. If the payment was delayed beyond the period mentioned in section 243 of the Act, interest had to be paid from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period to the date of the refund order. As such, the assessee is entitled to interest and the question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

2000 (10) TMI 172 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Flint Pharma (p.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commisioner Of Income-Tax.

Refunds, Self-Assessment ......

........... he taxpayers. Neither in the Income-tax Act nor in the Rules framed under the Incometax Rules any statutory form has been prescribed for the payment of different types of taxes like advance tax, TDS or payment of regular demand or even of self assessment tax under section 140A. All the forms supplied by the Department for payment of various types of taxes are non-statutory forms and these are meant only for the convenience of the tax payers. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that since admittedly the payment of Rs. 1,24,908 on account of advance tax was made by the assessee on 9-4-1990 in Challan No. 2 alongwith the payment of TDS of Rs. 44,101 totaling Rs. 1,69,009, the assessee is entitled to refund alongwith interest under section 244A and the Departmental Authorities were not justified in denying the claim of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to allow interest to the assessee under section 244A. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

2000 (9) TMI 60 - DELHI High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus ML Narang And Another

Self-Assessment, Penalty ......

........... ax before the date on which penalty was levied per se does not constitute a reason not to levy penalty. The assessee is required to show reasonable cause as to why there was non-payment within the stipulated time. In the instant case, the facts would go to show that several opportunities were granted to the assessees but they failed to indicate the reasons for not paying the admitted tax during the stipulated time. In fact, after the last date of hearing, tax is stated to have been paid. Merely because the order imposing penalty was not passed on that date and between the last date of hearing and the date of order the tax was paid, that does not dilute the consequences flowing from non-compliance with the requirements of section 140A. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in its conclusion to hold that penalty was not imposable. That being the position, we answer the question referred in each case in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees.

2000 (1) TMI 28 - KARNATAKA High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus NGEF. Limited

Interest, Interest On Refund ......

........... by the assessee. Its character is in no way different from the tax paid pursuant to notice of demand under section 156 by an assessee. Any tax refundable pursuant to the appellate order has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sections 240 and 244. There is no scope for invoking the provisions of section 214 in such a situation. Thus the only exception is that the interest under section 244(1A) cannot be paid in addition to the interest under section 214(1A). The tax which has been paid by way of self-assessment under section 140A gets adjusted against the assessed tax and thus partakes of the character of tax paid in pursuance of the assessment order. The Tribunal therefore was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the interest under section 244(1A) of the Act after considering the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee also as tax paid in pursuance of the assessment. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

1999 (5) TMI 23 - KARNATAKA High Court

Y. Venugopala Reddy Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Another

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Effect, Arrears, Interest Liability ......

........... ount paid under section 140A has to be adjusted towards tax. The amount has been paid admittedly under section 140A and the Explanation to section 140A is clear in requiring adjustment of the payment first towards interest liability. Even in the Budget Speech, the contention raised by the petitioner has not been elaborated, explained or stated. It is pointed out that, if the payment made under section 140A is adjusted towards interest, then such adjustment would be disadvantageous in comparison to the assessee who has not paid the tax at all. There may be anomalies or the Scheme may be more beneficial to the greater defaulter than to the honest taxpayer or the taxpayer who has complied with the provisions but the Scheme has to be read as it is. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any case for interference is made out. The contention that the payment under section 140A should be treated towards the tax liability has no force. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

 
   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.