2015 (11) TMI 293 - ITAT BANGALORE
M/s Elsamex TWS- SNC Joint Venture Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Revision u/s 263 - Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - Held that - AO asked details of the loan and advance being balance-sheet items (asset) and no question was raised on allowability or disallowability of the interest. Even the AO did not go into the point of interest-free advance in the question asked from the assessee. Thus merely asking the details of loan and advance without questioning the claim of the interest would not by any stretch of imagination raise a presumption that the issue of allowability of claim of interest was in the view of the AO. Further, the assessment order doe ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 1088 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, The Commissioner of Income Tax, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Vasco Sales And Marketing Corporation
Refund application after the expiry of the period - condonation of delay - Held that - When Exts.P14 and P15 applications were filed by the assessee, what was required to be examined was whether, to avoid genuine hardship to the assessee, it was necessary to condone the delay in making the application for refund. Ext.P16 order does not show that the Commissioner has examined Exts.P14 and P15 applications in the manner as required under Section 119(2)(b). On the other hand, Commissioner has discussed on the merits of the application and held that the delay has not been properly explained and th ....... - .......
2014 (11) TMI 270 - KERALA HIGH COURT
JOSEPH KORAH AND OTHERS Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM
Grant of interest on interest Amount due to assessee by way of refund - Whether an assessee under the Income Tax Act would be entitled to receive any amount by way of interest on interest under the Income Tax Act - Held that - The original petition as it claims interest on interest on the amounts that were due to the petitioner by way of refund failed - in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Others 2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME Court it has been held that although the assessee was not entitled to interest on interest under the Income Tax Act, he was nevertheless entitled to a reaso ....... - .......
2015 (11) TMI 280 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s. ELSAMEX-TWS-SNC JV & M/s HIMACHAL JOINT VENTURE
TDS credit - whether the receipts of amounts by the assessee from National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) could be treated as part of release of bank guarantee and the amount so received by the assessee should be treated as an advance and can it be an exception to the provisions of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act by availing all the benefits under Section 237 of the Act? - Held that - If the amount is a mobilisation advance and not an income at all, the question of paying income tax would net arise. When the gross receipts is offered and in that assessment year he has suffered loss, the ....... - .......
2014 (7) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bharati S. Kandhar Versus The Income Tax Officer And Others
Refund of excess tax with interest Held that - The entire issue of the orders of ITAT, AO orders giving effect to ITAT orders and Mr. S.M.Kandhar paying the tax as directed by the tribunal would require determination into questions of fact - It is only then that the amount of the refund if any due to the assessee can be determined - This would require examination of each ITAT orders and the consequence of it revenue is directed to consider application/representation for refund dated 12.6.2012 in the light of the various orders passe ....... - .......
2014 (5) TMI 520 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Gupta Versus Union of India and another
Mismatching of TDS amount - Refund of TDS - Application for rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act Held that - Following COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS 2013 (3) TMI 316 - DELHI HIGH COURT - no effort was made by the AO to verify the fact as to whether the deductor had made the payment of the TDS in the government account - Department has shown their helplessness in not refunding the amount on the sole ground that the details of the TDS did not match with the details shown in Form 26AS - it is apparent that there is a mismatch between the details uploa ....... - .......
2013 (2) TMI 149 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
TORRENT PVT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Revision application u/s 264 to get refund - amalgamated company viz. Torrent Power Limited, got merged with the assessee company has declared interim dividend on which Corporate Dividend Tax (CDT) has been duly paid under the provisions of Section 115-O - claiming refund of CDT as companies paying dividend and receiving dividend have already got amalgamated, there is, in effect, no distribution of dividend - petitioner presented revision petition under section 264 before the CIT - Held that - the Commissioner committed a serious error in, on one hand, holding that the revision petition was no ....... - .......
2012 (10) TMI 902 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Santuka Agencies Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Cuttack
Refund u/s 237 - power of AO to investigate - Whether Petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.1,70,691/- as claimed in its return filed on 01.09.2003 for the assessment year 2003-04 along with interest as provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961 Following the decision of court in case of Babu Ram Chandra Bhan v. ITO 1990 (9) TMI 34 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT while considering the provision of Section 237 held that a person becomes entitled to refund only when he satisfies the Assessing Officer that a certain amount is due to him. This satisfaction necessarily involves an inquiry where there is a dis ....... - .......
2012 (12) TMI 904 - DELHI HIGH COURT
LEASE PLAN INDIA & ANR. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX
Refund adjusted against demand Adjustment of refund without prior notice or intimation - Demand stayed by order of High Court Violation of Stay order Later on Revenue, in respect of a later period, sought to adjust the amounts due to the writ petitioner, by way of refund - Held that - When an order of stay of recovery in simplistic and absolute terms is passed, it would be improper and inappropriate on the part of the Revenue to recover the demand by way of adjustment. Revenue s contention is insubstantial & over-reach and circumvent the stay order. Therefore, the impugned adjustment sough ....... - .......
2013 (1) TMI 456 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Tarsem Kumar Versus The Income Tax Officer and others
Refund claim - Whether an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) would constitute assessment - Petitioner had omitted to claim the credit in original return of income u/s 139(1) on 26.7.2005 for the A.Y. 2005-06 - Intimation regarding processing of return forwarded to assessee u/s 143(1)(a) on 8.12.2005 Assessee filed a revised return for claiming refund on 26.9.2006 u/s 139(5) - Held that - Following the decision in case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited (2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT) that the expressions intimation and assessment order have been used at different places. The contextual differ ....... - .......
2012 (11) TMI 184 - Gujarat High Court
FAG Bearings India Ltd. Versus Chief Commissioner of Income-tax
Denial of Refund of excess tax deducted by source - the same payment of technical fees to the foreign company is made twice - Held that - The petitioner at the time of making the provision for technical assessment fees, payable to the foreign company deducted an amount of Rs. 19,49,400/as TDS and also deposited such sum with the Government of India on 1.6.1998. When the fees for technical assistance were actually remitted, the petitioner once again deducted a sum of Rs. 21,82,500/- towards tax at source and also deposited the sum with the Government of India on 18.8.1998. - Failure to see how ....... - .......
2012 (11) TMI 185 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income-tax & 1
Refund of TDS u/s 195 - Whether any latter amendment in the instructions issued by the CBDT can be the ground for declining the claim of the assessee - Whereas grounds of the assessee s case duly covered under the circular prior to amendment - Held that - The petitioner had already made an application on 20.9.1999 giving details of the refund claim. The respondents did not respond to such an application for a considerable period of time despite reminders from the petitioner. More than six months passed before the application of the petitioner was even attended to. If later on the rule position ....... - .......
2012 (6) TMI 285 - Jharkhand High Court
Chitranjan Jaiswal Versus CIT and Anr.
Whether in a case where the Assessing Officer drops a proceeding under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after filing of return and on the basis of return then refund claimed in that return is required to be allowed to the assessee Held that - order passed by the Assessing Officer clearly indicates that the proceeding was dropped by the Assessing Officer on the basis of return submitted by the assessee and that return has duly been accepted by the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer has not rejected the claim of assessee for refund while passing the impugned order, Revenue is requir ....... - .......
2011 (6) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Indglonal Investment & Finance Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer
Claim of refund on the ground that tax was mistakenly and on the ground that levy is wrong or contrary to the provisions of the enactment - The contention of the Revenue is that only the return form and the not the annexures attached are relevant to decide whether the assessee is entitled to refund or not. Thus, if the assessee has not claimed refund in the return form itself, then the assessee is not entitled to refund. - Held that - In case the Assessing Officer or tax authority comes to know that an assessee is entitled to deduction, relief or refund on the facts of the case and the assesse ....... - .......
2010 (2) TMI 215 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
DINAKAR ULLAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Refund- Interest on refund- The petitioner, a civil contractor assessed to income-tax, filed a belated return of income on September 8, 1997, for the assessment year 1995-96 declaring income of Rs. 50,240 and claiming refund of Rs. 2,41,505 being tax deducted at source, though March 31, 1997, was the last date for filing the belated return under section 139(4) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. Held that- allowing the petition, that the petitioner had made a belated claim for refund on Sep. 8 1997 along with an application to condone the delay filed on sep. 21, 1998 and this was required to be cons ....... - .......