2014 (1) TMI 1030 - ITAT MUMBAI
M/s. General Insurance Corporation of India Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Profits on sale of investments - Held that:- The taxability of income of insurance companies under the head "income from business and profession" as governed by provisions of section 44 read with first schedule to the Income tax Act, does not extend ......
2012 (7) TMI 183 - ITAT, DELHI
M/s Airline Allied Services Ltd., Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-1(1),
Dis allowance of Prior Period Expenses - Held that:- the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. It is well settled that accrual of a statutory liability depends upon the terms of the relevant statute and the quantification or ascertai ......
2009 (4) TMI 88 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Coimbatore Versus M/s Mani Spinning Mills P. Ltd.
Whether ITAT was right in holding that for purposes of computation of interest under Section 234B and 234C, tax credit u/s 115JAA has to be first set off against the tax payable and the interest under the said sections have to be computed after takin ......
2007 (9) TMI 190 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus TELEVISTA ELECTRONICS P. LTD.
Since assessee was assessed to a loss for the A.Y. 1976-77 to 1978-79, thus for the AY 1979-80, assessee was not required to compute advance tax as per sec. 209(1)(a) or file a statement of advance tax – interest levied for non-furnishing of statemen ......
2007 (1) TMI 166 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
KISHORE LAL (Legal heir of late Ram Rattan Dohra) Versus CIT
Delay of one day in filing the estimate of advance tax - reasons for delay was totally beyond the control of the assessee as his main source of income was share from B and filing of estimate of advance tax was dependent upon the intimation by the sai ......
2006 (9) TMI 302 - ITAT DELHI
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Cir. 9(1), New Delhi Versus SREI International Finance Ltd.
Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income, Minimum Alternate Tax, Bad debts ......
........... sessee objected to the prayer for remand on the ground that the Assessing Officer should not be given another opportunity. 22. We have considered the rival submissions. In the light of the clear provisions of section 14A of the Act, even in case it is not possible to identify the expenses incurred in earning the income which does not form part of the total income, disallowance has to be made on some basis. In the present case the Assessing Officer has made the impugned disallowance without giving any basis and has adopted 5 of the dividend income as the likely expenses for earning the dividend income. This was not proper. We are however of the view that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for making appropriate disallowance on an appropriate basis. This ground of appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 23. In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is allowed to the extent stated above.
2006 (6) TMI 135 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Nitin Murli Raheja. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 18 (3), Mumbai.
Chargeable As ......
........... etention of money as there can be no unjust enrichment in such a case. It will lead to unjust result if the Department is permitted to levy interest under section 234A on that amount also, which the assessee has already paid. It is therefore in this context that the term advance tax used in section 234A(1) requires to be interpreted in its generic sense. So interpreted, the term advance tax used in section 234A would cover all the taxes paid in advance of the tax liability anticipated by the assessee for the concerned assessment year. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer is directed to exclude Rs. 8,30,000 paid by the assessee on 30-6-2000 while calculating interest under section 234A for the year under appeal. In taking the aforesaid view, we are ably guided by the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT 2005 254 ITR 755, which squarely covers the issue in hand. 11. In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
2004 (9) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court
Punjab Small Industries And Export Corporation Ltd. Versus Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax (Assessment) And Another.
Whether interest u/s 214 could be denied to the assessee-corporation who had failed to pay the instalment of advance tax in accordance with the date specified u/s 211 – held that the Legislature intended to provide that the dates given in section 210 ......
1997 (3) TMI 40 - KERALA High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited
Advance Tax, Special Deduction, Co-operative Society ......
........... as June 16, 1980, in all the proceedings including the statement of case). Both sides admitted before us that the payment of Rs. 9,00,000 was made on December 15, 1980, and that the date shown in the proceedings is a mistake. When the payment is made on December 15, 1980, by applying the provisions contained under clause (i) of section 211(1), it has to be taken that the payment is that of advance tax. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in taking the view that payment made on December 15, 1980, was that of advance tax and the assessee will be entitled to all consequential reliefs. In the light of the above discussion, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We answer the second question in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
1995 (12) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court
Ganga Cut Piece Centre Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Firm Registration, High Court, Supreme Court ......
........... e Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act within the period prescribed for that purpose. Counsel, therefore, submitted that this application is inutile and that the applicant is not without remedy. Earlier the question of registration is decided against the applicant. The decision is reported in Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT 1982 137 ITR 274. In CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi 1990 183 ITR 75 (MP), it is held that the pendency of the same issues before the Supreme Court is no ground for directing the reference. The point of controversy stands decided by this court against the assessee and the Tribunal having followed the decision of this court, we hold that no referable questions arise in this case. That being so, we reject the application leaving the applicant free to resort to appropriate remedy when the occasion so arises, as noted above, if permissible under the law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Counsel fee on either side shall, however, be Rs. 750, if certified.
1995 (4) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN High Court
Jai Drinks Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Advance Tax, Appellate Orders, Financial Year, Interest Payable By Government On Excess Payment, Rectification Proceedings ......
........... against the current year liability. This court has taken a view in the case of Associated Stone Industries v. CIT 1996 217 ITR 246, D. B. Income-tax Reference No. 69 of 1986, decided on March 14, 1995, that interest on refund in the rectification proceeding will not be permissible. The adjustment of refund could not be considered to be an advance tax for which separate provision exists for interest, interest under section 214 is not allowable. It was not on account of any omission on the part of the Income-tax Officer by which the refund became payable, but it was on account of the appellate orders in respect of the previous years to which effect was given under section 154. The Division Bench of this court has held that the interest in the proceeding under section 154 being an arguable point, cannot be claimed and as such the assessee is not entitled to interest in respect of this amount. This part of the relief claimed is not allowable. The writ petition is partly allowed.
1994 (7) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Indian Aluminium Industries
Failure To Pay Advance Tax, Penalty Proceedings ......
........... rcumstances as may be prescribed, the Income-tax Officer may reduce or waive the interest payable by the assessee under this section. Thus, it is seen that the Income-tax Officer has the discretion to reduce or waive the interest payable by the assessee. Though the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes does not have the consequence of relieving the assessee of the liability to pay interest on account of the fact that less than a fortnight s notice had been issued to him--that circumstance may, in appropriate cases, be taken into consideration by the Income-tax Officer in deciding whether he should reduce the rate of interest payable. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will consider this aspect of the matter while giving effect to the order in this reference. A copy of this order under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be forwarded to the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
1991 (5) TMI 37 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Roadmaster Industries Of India Pvt. Limited
Interest On Excess Advance Tax, Interest Payable To Assessee ......
........... ) P. Ltd. 1979 118 ITR 525 (Bom) CIT v. T. T. Investments and Trades P. Ltd. 1984 148 ITR 347 (Mad) CIT v. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. 1987 167 ITR 306 (Rai) and CIT v. Ajoy Paper Mills Ltd. 1990 181 ITR 454 (Cal). As regards the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in A. Sethumadhavan s case 1980 122 ITR 587, this was subsequently specifically reversed on appeal in Santha S. Shenoy v. Union of India 1982 135 ITR 39 (Ker). Finally, coming to the argument founded upon the proviso to section 211 which came to be added by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, it clearly does not warrant the interpretation as was sought to be put upon it by counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax as it was evidently clarificatory in nature and must thus be construed as such. Such being the settled position in law, we hereby answer the reference in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
1989 (4) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Ajoy Paper Mills Limited
Advance Tax, Interest Payable To Assessee ......
........... f determining the tax due on regular assessment, cannot ignore such payment, then for the purpose of calculating interest also, such payment cannot be kept out of consideration. Even otherwise, in view of the reference to the date from which interest is to be calculated, namely, 1st April next following the financial year in which the advance tax was payable, that tax must be given credit for in calculating the a mount of interest. Any payment made prior to 1St April, i.e., before the commencement of the relevant assessment year, has to be taken into account. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to interest if the conditions stated in section 214 are satisfied even though the assessee might not have paid the advance tax by instalments on the due date(s). We, therefore, answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. -I agree.
1988 (10) TMI 1 - CALCUTTA High Court
Biria Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Others
Advance Tax, Financial Year, Interest Payable By Assessee ......
........... pect of the sum of Rs. 17,11,410 being the estimate of advance tax by the petitioner. I also hold that the order dated September 5, 1986, passed by the Commissioner under section 264 of the Act rejecting the application of the petitioner for direction that the Income-tax Officer may be directed it to charge interest in the said sum of Rs. 17,11,410 paid as advance tax within the time as allowed or stipulated in the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 212 of the Act is not justified. This writ application succeeds. The rule is made absolute. A writ in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to with draw, cancel or rescind the said order dated February 2, 1982, being Memo No. PAN-11-000-C7-1612/GAL C. C. (26) assessment year 1974-75 dated 1982, and also the REV-83/81-82/902, dated September 5, 1986, so far as the same relates to charging of interest on the sum of Rs. 17,11,410. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.