Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 612 - HC - Income TaxApplication for waiver of income tax - reference before BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - mandate to the Income Tax Department to grant the tax concession requested by the petitioner company - request to allow to carry forward the loss beyond the statutory period - HELD THAT:- In the context of income tax concession, in para 2.1 of the said scheme, the reference was made to the Department’s letter dated 15.2.2012 stating that the company had not quantified its tax liability in the projected statement and that the reliefs sought by the company can be considered only after the details are received from the company. In this context, the Board noted that at an appropriate place, the words “to consider” have already been prefixed. The combine reading of para 2 and 2.1 of the said scheme would clearly bring about the purpose and intent of use of the said expression ‘to consider’. In the context of state tax, the Board clearly noted the stand of the State Government that there is no policy of the State Government to waive the taxes. The Board was, however, of the opinion that the expression “to consider” would enable the company to claim such benefits if in future, the Government policy changes. The scheme did not contain any mandate to the Income Tax Department to grant the tax concession requested by the petitioner company. Firstly, the Department had objected to any concession being granted. Secondly, before the Board, it was pointed out that without quantification, the Revenue would not be in a position to give any concession and thirdly, in this respect, the scheme envisaged only to consider the request for tax concession. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that under the scheme, the direction was issued to the Income Tax Department to grant the benefit and that all that was left to be done was to compute the benefit. The facts in case of Tube Investments of India [2012 (1) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] court has held that the scheme should be read as a whole and that the authority was therefore bound to grant such benefit. From the judgment, it is not clear whether the Income Tax Department had opposed granting of any such concession to the company when the scheme under SICA was being framed. In the present case, as noted, the Income Tax Department had objected to any tax waiver being granted in favour of the company. Petition dismissed
|