New User / Register | Bookmarks | Annual Subscription | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
           
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

vehicle finance is taxable ?? Service tax credit availment on cctv cameras service tax credit eligible on commission on sales transaction value for excisable goods cleared to depot. C-Form ( Central Sales Tax Forms) Sale from Jobworkers premises Empty Barrels Purchase Proof of Export Interest payment month wise Excise Registration Amendment

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 140A

 

Income Tax


Cases for Section: 140A
 
Showing 31 to 45 of 125 Records
 

2005 (11) TMI 388 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Patson Transformers Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-VIII

Interest chargeable ......

........... view that adjustment towards interest payable under section 234B is to be consi-dered only at the time of filing return of income i.e., when payment of self-assessment under section 140A is required to be made. Before that interest under section 234B is independently required to be calculated only in accordance with the provisions provided in section 234B(i). If at the time of filing return it is found short payment after adjustment of interest out of tax paid under section 140A, further interest is required to calculate in accordance with section 234B(2)(ii), on balance amount which is assessed tax minus advance tax and ad hoc payment. 15. Thus, we find that approach of revenue for calculation of interest under section 234B is not correct, therefore, the orders of lower authori-ties are set-aside and the claim of the assessee is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to calculate interest under section 234B as per above discussion. 16. In the result, appeals are allowed.

2005 (11) TMI 174 - ITAT AMRITSAR

Jagdish Raj Chauhan, Sohagwanti And Gurbachan Singh (Aop). Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Jalandhar.

Commissioner (Appeals) ......

........... the legal position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that CIT(A) was justified in dismissing all these appeals on the ground that these were filed late and there were no valid reasons for the delay. Therefore, the orders of CIT(A) are upheld and this part of respective grounds for all the appeals is also dismissed. 12. Now the only issue that requires to be considered is the merits of grounds of appeals relating to charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C and validity of processing of returns under section 143(1)(a). Since we have upheld the orders of CIT(A) on the point of delay in filing the appeals, we do not consider it necessary to record any findings on the merits of grounds. This course of action is supported by the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. relied upon by the learned counsel himself. Therefore, these grounds are disposed of in these terms. 13. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed.

2005 (4) TMI 282 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

Pedda Sankara Rao And Others. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Chargeability ......

........... to be paid on the basis of computation of total income as determined by the AO as liability to the interest is based on the total income as assessed by the AO. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and we find force in the submission of the learned Authorised Representative. The appeals before us relates to the matter relating to the levy of the interest under s. 220(2) The appeal does not relate to the income as assessed or computed by the AO. Since the appeal does not relate to the total income as determined by the AO, therefore, we are of the view that cls. (a), (b), (c), of s. 253(6) are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The appeal since relates to the levy of the interest, we are of the opinion that it falls under cl. (d) of s. 253(6) of the IT Act and, therefore, in each of the appeal the fee payable should be Rs. 500. We, therefore, do not find any defect in the appeal filed by the assessee. 19. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed.

2004 (8) TMI 358 - ITAT MADRAS-B

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Investigation Circle Ii, Trichy. Versus S. Dharamchand Jain.

Self-Assessment ......

........... ated as an assessee deemed to be in default under section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, no penalty can be imposed under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee has submitted a proposal for payment of tax in instalment. Admittedly the entire stock and liquid cash was under the custody of the Department. Under those circumstances, the first appellate authority found that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not paying the tax before filing the return of income. This finding of the first appellate authority is not challenged before this Tribunal by the Revenue. Therefore, in view of second proviso to section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, no penalty could be imposed. 16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, we confirm the same. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.

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.

 
   
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Quick Links: | Acts and Rules | Notifications | Circulars | Schedules | Tariff | Forms | Case Laws | Manuals |
| Home | About us | Contact us | Feed Back | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Members | |
Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.