Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

P.R. Thangavelu Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax

2016 (9) TMI 1190 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Refund of excess amount paid under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rules, 1998 - Held that:- Under normal circumstances, the respondent would be justified in stating that no refund is payable on any amount paid pursuant to the declaration made under Section 88, in the light of the statutory embargo under Section 93. However, the facts of the present case are different and amount has been paid based on interim direction. The further fact which has to be taken note of is that the petitioner succeeded in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed in the earlier Writ Petitions. - Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to refund the excess amount paid by the petitioner, viz., ₹ 76,292/-. However, the plea for interest stands rejected. - W. P. No. 14071 of 2003 - Dated:- 12-9-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. M. P. Senthil Kumar For the Respondnet : Mr. S. Rajasekar, SC ORDER Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ules, 1998 (KVSS Rules) as per the revised Form 2A dated 21.09.2001 issued by the respondent after giving effect to the final order passed in W.P.No.4893 and 4894 of 1999 dated 23.02.2001. 3. The petitioner filed declaration under section 89 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 in respect of the KVSS, in Form-1A as per Rule 3(1)(a) of the KVSS Rules 1998, before the respondent, who is the Designated Authority, on 28.12.1998 for the assessment year 1985-86. 4. The petitioner in the said declaration st .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and interest of ₹ 1,72,978/-; the disputed income was declared as ₹ 1,89,000/- and the petitioner arrived at the amount payable under the scheme as ₹ 400/-. 5. The respondent issued an intimation under Section 90(1) of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, in respect of the KVSS and determined the amount payable by the petitioner at ₹ 3,13,635 as against the amount of ₹ 400/- as per the statement of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner filed a petition dated 26.02.1999 for clarif .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

all the facts, and interim order was granted in the said Writ Petition in W.M.P.No.7050 and 7053 of 1999 dated 24.03.1999, directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the interest arrears. Accordingly, the petitioner had paid a sum of ₹ 92,300/- for the assessment year 1985-86 and ₹ 16,258/- for the assessment year 1986-87 and in all ₹ 1,08,558/-. After which the Writ Petitions were taken up for final disposal and the Writ Petitions were allowed by an order dated 23.02.2001 and the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be done, at the time the scheme was in force, would disentitle the assessee from claiming the benefit of that scheme. 6. It is not the person who took the matter in appeal, or the fact of that matter having been remanded without being finally decided, or the fact of the re-determination not having been made after the remand, that is relevant. What is relevant is that the determination of the tax had been made prior to 31.03.1998 in an order of assessment. The subsequent developments with reg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or full and final settlement of the tax arrears under Section 90(2) read with Section 91 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 in respect of KVSS, dated 22.10.2002. 8. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.10.2002 stating that they paid ₹ 1,08,558/-, as per the interim order in the earlier Writ Petitions and as per the final order, the amount payable is only ₹ 32,266/-. Hence, the petitioner requested for refund of the balance amount of ₹ 76,292/-. This has been rejected .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version