Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 197 - HC - Income TaxLevy of surcharge on undisclosed income assessed as block assessment – Whether the Tribunal is justified in deleting levy of surcharge at the rate of 10% on undisclosed income for the block period 1990-91 to 1999-2000 in light of the provisions contained in Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 2000 - Held that:- Following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -I, New Delhi Versus Vatika Township Private Limited [2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that the surcharge on the income tax was introduced for the first time by the Finance Act, 1995, in Section 2 (3) - However, initially, this surcharge was levied only on the income of companies i.e. corporate entities incorporated under the Indian Companies Act by specified surcharge at the rate of 15% in the Finance Act, 1996, which was reduced to 7.50% in the Finance Act, 1997 - in the next two Finance Acts i.e. 1998 and 1999, there was no surcharge levied even in the cases of companies - However, by Finance Act, 2000, surcharge at a flat rate of 10% came to be levied in respect of individuals, HUF, BOI, AOP as well as co-operative societies, partnership firms, local authorities and also the companies - in subsequent years, the rates at which the surcharge is levied on the entities are of varying nature. Where a benefit is conferred by a legislation, the rule against a retrospective construction is different - If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect – thus, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the surcharge levied by the AO - the Tribunal rightly followed the decision in CIT Versus OHM DEVELOPERS [2005 (6) TMI 542 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and came to the conclusion that for the block period under consideration there was no proviso to section 113 of the Act – Decided against revenue.
|