2015 (2) TMI 675 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
The CIT, Jaipur Versus M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Jaipur
Rectification of mistake - whether on an application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act interest under section 214 of the Income-tax Act could be granted on advance tax payments, made after the prescribed dates but within the financial year? - H.....
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 to.....
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 statement is not justified
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
2006 (6) TMI 135 - ITAT BOMBAY-E
Nitin Murli Raheja. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 18 (3), Mumbai.
........... 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(1.....
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
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.