TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Along with the counter affidavit the petitioner herein filed a calculation memo stating that they had deposited ₹ 11,02,218-00 after deducting ₹ 11,269-00 and ₹ 7,968/- towards income tax at 10.3% on ₹ 1,09,410/- being interest accrued on ₹ 4,24,272- 00 apportioned to the share of the 1st petitioner and TDS at 10.3% on ₹ 77,363/-, the interest accrued on ₹ 3,00,000/- apportioned to the share of the 2nd petitioner for the period from 11.3.2004 to 17.8.2007. Relying on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Hansguri Prafulchandra Ladhani v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.[ 2007 ACJ 1897] the Learned District Judge held that interest on compensation could not be taken to have accrued year after ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax component deducted earlier as TDS. He would submit that the Gujarat High Court, in Hansguri Prafulchandra Ladhani , had issued a similar direction to the claimants. Learned counsel would also rely on New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Mani[(2004) Vol.270 ITR 394] wherein the Madras High Court held that the claimants were at liberty to approach the concerned authority for spreading the income over the period for which payment of interest came to be made so that the income for the purpose of assessing tax for the relevant assessment year could be computed and, in case the petitioner was not liable to pay income tax on that score, there was a possibility of the petitioner getting refund of the amount. The Madras High Court further held that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner had already paid the TDS amount deducted from the respondents claimants to the Income Tax Department and, as a result of the order of the court below, the petitioner has been mulcted with the liability with regards the TDS amount twice i.e., payment of the said amount both to the Income Tax Department and to the respondents claimants. As the order of the court below suffers from a patent error of law, and is without jurisdiction, the said order necessitates being set aside. The order in E.P.No.24 of 2007 in O.P.No.507 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam dated 13.2.2008 is set aside. It is, however, open to the claimants to approach the Income Tax authorities and ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
