Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... on 7 December, 1970

Income-Tax Officer vs Khushi Ram And Sons on 9 June, 1989

4. It would be sufficient if I refer to the judgment of the Honourable Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. In that case, in accordance with the provisions of Section 206 of the Act, the Divisional Manager of the Life Insurance Company of India, Sagar filed for the assessment year 1977-78, the annual return of salary in respect of its employees showing the amount of tax deductible under Section 192 of the Act. The ITO noticing that tax was not properly deducted in the case of some of the employees recomputed the income of those employees and demanded under Section 201 of the Act, the additional tax that should have been deducted under Section 201 of the Act by the LIC. The CIT(A), however, allowed the first appeal because the employees had paid their proper taxes. The Tribunal though dismissed the Revenue's appeals but gave reference of the following reproduced question under Section 256(1) of the Act:-, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where regular assessment of an employee has been completed and the amount of tax fully paid by him, the ITO(TDS) has no jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Act, 1961, to demand further tax from the employer in respect of the tax short deducted relating to such employed?
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Punjab State Electricity Board vs Ito on 25 October, 2001

Similar views have been expressed by some other Benches of the Tribunal and by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in CIT v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 818 (MP) and CIT v. Life Insurance Corpn. (1987) 166 ITR 191 (MP). The calculation of interest on surcharge therefore, does not appear to be correct. The appeliant could only be liable for payment of interest upto the date of which the payees deposited their tax by way of advance-tax or TDS and this date in no case could go beyond the end of the financial year i.e. 31st March in each case and each year. This is especially so in view of the fact that all the payees are nationalised Banks and had duly paid their taxes by this date and their assessment orders subsequently resulted only in refunds. This fact however, may be verified by the assessing officer for financial years 1991-92 and 1992-93 and in case the facts mentioned above are found to be correct, interest and surcharge may be charged upto 31st March of each financial year and not upto the date of recovery made by the department from the appellant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 70 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

U.P. State Industrial Development ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 20 September, 2001

In the case of CIT v. Life Insurance Corporation [1987] 166 ITR 191 (Mad.), following its earlier decision, the Hon'ble M.P. High Court has held that where a regular assessment of an employee had been completed and the amount of tax was fully paid by him, the ITO, TDS, had no jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Act to demand further tax from the employer in respect of the tax short deducted relating to such employee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 29 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Up State Industrial Development Corpn ... vs Ito on 20 September, 2001

In the case of CIT v. Life Insurance Corpn. (1987) 166 ITR 191 (MP), following its earlier decision, the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where a regular assessment of an employee had been completed and the amount of tax was fully paid by him, the Income Tax Officer, TDS, had no jurisdiction under section 201 of the Act to demand further tax from the employer in respect of the tax short deducted relating to such employee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Sood Enterprises on 13 March, 1992

This decision was later on followed by the same High Court in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. (supra). Though all these cases relate to the tax to be deducted from salaries, the view taken by the High Court was that when the employee has paid the tax and when an assessment on the employee was completed, the Income-tax Officer has no jurisdiction under Section 201 of the Income-tax Act to demand further tax from the employer in respect of the tax sought to be deducted relating to such employee. In coming to this conclusion the High Court discussed the scheme of Chapter XVII and held that when there is no liability by the employee and when the employee discharges the liability of paying the tax, the employer need not be called upon to pay the tax and consequently the penal interest also. It is also brought to our notice by the learned advocate for the assessee that S.L.P. filed against this decision was also rejected by the Supreme Court, which was reported in 151 I.T.R. Statutes. Having regard to the scheme of the Act when the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the payee, namely, the Calcutta company had paid advance tax on this interest, to that extent the liability of the assessee can be deemed to have been discharged, and he cannot be again called upon to pay interest even for that period. It may be that if interest is levied in the hands of the assessee, as contended for by the Revenue, to that extent there may be unjust enrichment on the part of the Government because having already collected the tax due to it from the payee it is again seeking to collect the tax from the payer also, and what is more levying interest for non-payment of such tax.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Viswapriya Financial Services & ... vs Income Tax Officer on 14 February, 1996

Similar view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. M. P. Agro Morarji Fertilizers Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 282 (MP) and also the same High Court decisions in the case of CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation (1987) 166 ITR 191 (MP) and in the case of CIT vs. Shri Synthetics Ltd. (1985) 151 ITR 634 (MP). This aspect of the matter was not considered by the authorities below. Until this question is considered, in our opinion, the levy of interest under s. 201(1A) does not arise. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below by which interest was levied and remit the matter back to the file of the AO to find out the actual liability of tax to be deducted by the assessee in respect of the payments made by it. While doing so the AO shall take into consideration the payment of tax already made by the different investors in respect of their receipts of interest, or the claim for exemption under s. 80L by the investors for which we hope that the assessee will cooperate with the AO. As we have already held that the assessee-company should have deducted tax at source, the appeals against the orders under s. 201(1) are dismissed. So far as the appeals against the orders under s. 201(1A) are concerned the appeals are set aside and remitted back to the AO as mentioned above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ito vs Manav Greys Exim (P) Ltd. on 11 September, 2000

(1) CIT v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (1983) 140 ITR 818 (MP); (2) CIT v. Life Insurance Corpn. (1986) 166 ITR 191 (MP); (3) CIT v. Manager, M.P. State Co-op. Development Bank Ltd. (1982) 137 ITR 230 (MP); (4) Salwan Construction Co. v. Asstt. CIT (1995) 53 TTJ (Del-Trib) 39; (5) Munak Investment (P) Ltd. v. ITO (supra) (6) ITO v. Sood Enterprises, (supra); and (7) N.K. Patel & Co. v. ITO (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next