2007 (4) TMI 296 - ITAT COCHIN
Fertilizers And Chemicals Travancore Limited. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle-1, Aluva.
Interest Chargeable ......
........... s deduction under section 80HHC is concerned, the term profits of business has been defined by Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC to mean the profits of the business as computed under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . As per section 29 of the Act, the income under the head Profits and gains of business or profession shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43B and there should not be any controversy in respect of the unabsorbed investment allowance brought forward from the earlier year that it is to be adjusted from the profits of business. We do not find any merit in the argument of the ld. CA that it is a debatable issue. In our opinion, this is a mistake apparent on the record, as the language of the statute is very clear and no interpretation or debate is required on the issue. We, therefore, reject the contention of the assessee and dismiss ground No.3. 22. In the result, the assessee s appeal is partly allowed.
2007 (2) TMI 130 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS
COMMISIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SIV INDUSTRIES LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION)
Refund – Assessee contended that they liable for interest on refund from the date following the expiry of the period of three months to the date on which refund was granted – Held assessee contention was correct and allowed ......
2006 (10) TMI 91 - KERALA HIGH COURT
KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Held that though there was prescription of time limit u/s 140A read with sec. 139 for payment of tax, there was time limit which expired on Nov 30 – Levy of one month interest because of payment of tax on 1.12.97 instead of 30.11.97 (because of holid ......
2006 (9) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HIND WOOLLEN AND HOSIERY MILLS
Revenue contended that (i) Extra shift allowance has to be calculated on the basis of the number of days on which the concern worked (ii) Assessee liable for interest u/s 215 and 217(1A) – Held that revenue contention was not correct and allowed appe ......
2006 (3) TMI 87 - KARNATAKA High Court
Ramachandra Pesticides P. Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax.
Penalty under section 140A(3) - non-payment of tax of self-assessment - "1. Whether, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that penalty under section 140A(3) for non-payment of tax on admitted income is leviable after holding that the assessee was ......
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.
........... 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.
........... 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.
........... 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 ......