2016 (2) TMI 755 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX Versus M/s. VADILAL NANCHAND
Adjustment of refund of other firms as payment under section 140A in the case of the assessee for the purpose of charging interest - Held that - As is well known, the Income Tax Act provides detail provisions for granting interest on refund as well as charging interest on unpaid tax or tax paid after delay. Excess tax paid by one assessee cannot be offset against shortfall of tax of another assessee in order to curtail the interest liability of the debtor. The CIT(Appeals) was conscious that the statute would not permit this. He, however, taking into account peculiar facts of the case granted ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 274 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sri Suresh Sharma Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Interest under Section 234A determined before taking notice of self assessment payment under Section 140A - Held that - In the absence of any statutory provision made for reducing such amount paid towards self assessment tax, the Authorities proceeded to levy interest on the entire amount de hors the payment of ₹ 40 lakhs made by the Assessee towards the self assessment tax before the due date of filing of return of income. A similar question was considered in the case of Pranoy Roy 2008 (9) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT wherein considered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No.2/ ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 296 - ITAT MUMBAI
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Stock Guardians India Pvt. Ltd. And Vica-Versa
Penalty under section 221 r.w.s. 140A(3) - levy the maximum penalty - Penalty payable when tax in default - Held that - Examination by the learned CIT(A) of the assessee s bank account, for the period under consideration, evidenced that the assessee did not have sufficient funds therein and that the payment of taxes in six installments from 22.11.2011 to 09.03.2012 were made by margin moneys deposited with various brokers being withdrawn by the assessee. Before us, except for reiterating the ground raised, Revenue had not been able to controvert the above factual findings of the learned CIT(A) ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Premier Distilleries P. Ltd Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax And The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Penalty imposed u/s 221 (1) - self assessment tax under Section 140A remained payable - denial of natural justice - Held that - Considering the assessee s submission that the 1st respondent is erred in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 221(1) without considering sufficient cause shown for the belated payment of self assessment tax under Section 140A for the assessment year in question and without assigning proper reasons and that the 1st respondent has failed to appreciate the unreasonable approach of the 3rd respondent in passing the exparte penalty order even though it was brought ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 608 - ITAT MUMBAI
Raymond Limited Versus Dy. CIT-293) , Mumbai
Exigibility to interest u/s.244A - refund of tax to the assessee for the relevant year - Held that - The Apex Court per its larger bench decisions in Modi Industries Ltd. (1995 (9) TMI 324 - SUPREME Court) and Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT) settled that there is no right to get interest of refund except as provided by the statute. The proposition of the interest being exigible on any amount paid, irrespective of either any obligation to pay or even its character under the Act, and from the date of its payment (i.e., except in the case of prepaid tax), cannot, in v ....... - .......
2015 (9) TMI 1344 - ITAT MUMBAI
C.C. Chokshi & Co. Versus The ACIT, Range 11 (2) , Mumbai
Addition on un-reconciled professional receipts on the basis of difference between the information gathered from the Annual Information Report(AIR) and professional receipts declared as per books of account - Held that - We set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on the ground that the differences between the information gathered from AIR and the professional receipts as per books of account is not corroborated by any third party evidence to suggest any nondisclosure of professional receipts by the assessee for the year under consideration - De ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 345 - ITAT MUMBAI
Mrs. Jayamala Sutrave Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-24 and 26, Mumbai
Validity of search conduced in the hands of the assessee under section 132 - Held that - We notice that the only reason on which the assessee is questioning the validity of search is that the search action has not resulted in unearthing of any incriminating material or undisclosed income. Validity of search could not be questioned on the above said ground. It is not necessary that the search action should always result in unearthing of any incriminating material or undisclosed income. Even if no incriminating material or undisclosed income was unearthed, the search would be valid, if one of th ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 1466 - ITAT CHENNAI
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle Tambaram.
Credit for foreign tax paid in Mauritius - whether should not be excluded while computing interest under section 234C? - whether the payment made by the assessee on 10.09.2004 in Mauritius can be considered as advance tax as was done by the assessee or can it be a self-assessment tax as was considered by the Assessing Officer? - Held that - The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has considered the submissions of the assessee and the averments of the Assessing Officer elaborately and held that amount paid by the assessee has to be considered as selfassessment tax for the purpose of computing ....... - .......
2015 (12) TMI 969 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Rajaratna Mills Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore
Entitlement to interest under section 244A paid by them under section 140A - Held that - The entitlement of a person to interest on the refund arises out of substantive part of sub-section (1) of section 244A. Clauses (a) and (b) relate only to the method of computation. The method of computation dealt with by clause (a) relates to specific cases of refund under certain provisions. Therefore, the starting point for calculation of the interest is fixed as 1st April in clause (a). Clause (b) is a residuary clause, as could be seen from the usage of the expression in any other case . Therefore, t ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 876 - ITAT KOLKATA
D.C.I.T,C.C XIII, Kolkata Versus M/s. Janki Textile & Industries Ltd and M/s. Umang Vincom Pvt. Ltd
Explanation to section 73 - whether the main source of income of the assessee company was share trading and not income from other sources? - CIT(A) held that by virtue of main source of income of the assessee being Income from other sources explanation to section 73 was not applicable - Held that - In the present case, the AO has considered the income of ₹ 30 crores, disclosed u/s. 132(4) by the assessee as income from other sources because such income was declared to buy peace and there is no evidence in the form of seized documents as per the assessment order, to correlate such income ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 603 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Konar Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. and Others Versus Dy. Commissioner of I.T., Central Circle 8, Hyderabad
Penalty under section 221(1) read with section 140A(3) - assessee companies had not paid either any advance tax or even self assessment tax before filing their returns of income nor even after issue of intimations under section 143(1) resulting into raising of demand - Held that - Similar penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the cases of other group companies 2014 (12) TMI 431 - ITAT HYDERABAD involving materially the same facts have been sustained by the Tribunal to the extent of 5 of the admitted tax liability as concluding that on perusal of the ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 1023 - ITAT PUNE
ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Versus Shri Chandak Krishnagopal Motilal
Penalty u/s.140A(3) r.w.s. 221 - assessee failed to pay self-assessment tax - CIT(A) deleted the addition admitting additional evidences - Held that - In the instant case it is an undisputed fact that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer despite repeated opportunities given by him. This act of assessee by ignoring the Assessing Officer is highly deplorable. However, considering the mishaps in the family caused due to the death of his parents within a very short span and the subsequent illness of his wife as stated before the CIT(A) and not controverted by the Revenue we are ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 322 - ITAT DELHI
ACIT Versus Rakesh Kumar Garg
Penalty u/s 140A(3) - non payment of self assessment tax which was shown as payable in the return of income filed - CIT(A) deleted the penalty levy - Held that - No penalty notice was issued to the assessee u/s 221 of the Act and the penalty order was also not passed u/s 221 of the Act and there is no penalty provision u/s 140A of the Act and the AO misunderstood the relevant provision of the Act while issuing notice and imposing penalty against the assessee. Consequently the assessee was also not provided due opportunity of hearing prior to imposing penalty u/s 221 of the Act as required by f ....... - .......
2015 (6) TMI 217 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. Nagesh Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Refund the excess amount paid with interest - Held that - The declaration of income furnished by the assessee under the revised return is declared to be invalid. In such circumstances, the provisions of self-assessment under Section 140-A of the Act, are not attracted. If the Assessing Officer is barred from framing a fresh assessment based on any invalid return, non-est in the eye of law, though is chargeable under Section 4 of the Act, Department, retaining that amount of tax paid on the basis of an invalid return without there being any self assessment/assessment made by the authorities und ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 1411 - ITAT MUMBAI
DCIT - 10 (2) Mumbai Versus M/s. Aanjaneya Life Care Ltd.
Penalty under section 221(1) - delay in making payment of self-assessment tax - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee was having meagre cash and current balances and the assessee was in financial constraints during the year under consideration thus cancelled penalty - Held that - Though several grounds were raised before us, the learned Departmental representative was unable to point out as to whether the assessee had sufficient cash/ bank balance so as to meet the tax demand. The learned Departmental representative also could not point out as to whether any funds wer ....... - .......