Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Parshottam Nagindas And Ors. vs B.R. Adwalpalkar, Commissioner Of ... on 26 March, 1995

C.G. Krishna Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. on 26 August, 1998

In Parshottam Nagindas & Ors. vs. B.R. Adwalpalkar (supra) heavy reliance whereupon was placed by Mr. Rao, the Court has proceeded on the assumption that there is no provision requiring the assessee to make payment of the admitted tax amount. It was held that in the absence of any requirement of making the payment of the admitted tax, it was not possible to interpret the said provision to mean that such payment should have been made at the time of making the disclosure. A payment made any time before the power under s. 273A was invoked could also in the opinion of the learned Judges, who decided the case suffice. With utmost respect, I find it difficult to fall in line. The provisions contained in s. 273A do not in my opinion admit of the interpretation placed upon the same by the Gujarat High Court. The requirement of paying the amount of tax due on the amount disclosed in the return cannot be made infructuous by holding that such a payment could as well have been made any time before the power to waive is invoked by the assessee. The rationale behind the requirement is to encourage proper payment of the amount of tax, which is according to the assessee's own showing due and recoverable from him. It only means that those who pay promptly can claim the benefit of waiver of interest also. An interpretation, according to which payment of even the admitted tax amount is not necessary till such time the power to reduce or waive the interest levied under ss. 139(8) and 217 is invoked will have the effect of negating the very purpose underlying the provision. Any such interpretation has therefore to be eschewed. Since the scheme underlying the provision does not envisage a benefit except in cases that fall within the four corners prescribed by it the beneficial nature of the legislature can be of no help. Payment of the admitted amount of tax along with the return being one of the requirements, non-compliance with the same would take the case of the assessee out of the purview of the said provisions. The CIT was in that view perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. There is no merit in this Petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any orders as to costs.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - T S Thakur - Full Document

C.G. Krishna Prasad (Major) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 26 August, 1998

In Parshottam Nagindas v. B. R. Adwalpalkar [1996] 218 ITR 392 (Guj), heavy reliance whereupon was placed by Mr. Rao, the court has proceeded on the assumption that there is no provision requiring the assessee to make payment of the admitted tax amount. It was held that in the absence of any requirement of making the payment of the admitted tax, it was not possible to interpret the said provision to mean that such payment should have been made at the time of making the disclosure. A payment made any time before the power under Section 273A was invoked could also in the opinion of the learned judges, who decided the case would suffice. With utmost respect, I find it difficult to fall in line. The provisions contained in Section 273A do not in my opinion admit of the interpretation placed upon the same by the Gujarat High Court. The requirement of paying the amount of tax due on the amount disclosed in the return cannot be made infructuous by holding that such a payment could as well have been made any time before the power to waive is invoked by the assessee. The rationale behind the requirement is to encourage prompt payment of the amount of tax, which is according to the assessee's own showing due and recoverable from him. It only means that those who pay promptly can claim the benefit of waiver of interest also. An interpretation, according to which payment of even the admitted tax amount is not necessary till such time the power to reduce or waive the interest levied under Sections 139(8) and 217 is invoked will have the effect of negating the very purpose underlying the provision. Any such interpretation has, therefore, to be eschewed. Since the scheme underlying the provision does not envisage a benefit except in cases that fall within the four corners prescribed by it the beneficial nature of the legislation can be of no help. Payment of the admitted amount of tax along with the return being one of the requirements, non-compliance with the same would take the case of the assessee out of the purview of the said provision. The Commissioner of Income-tax was in that view perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. There is no merit in this petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any orders as to costs.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Pr.Chockalingam, Trichy vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 August, 2011

8. The C.I.T.(Appeals) also erred in not following the ratio of decision of R.B.Falcon (A) Pvt. Ltd. vs C.I.T. 301 ITR 309(SC), Shri Krishna Engg Co. [2005]2 SCC 692, Visitor vs K.S. Misra [2007] 8 SCC 593, Parsottam Nagindas vs B.R. Adwalparkar 218 ITR 392 (Guj), Assam Co. Ltd. vs State of Assam 248 ITR 567 (SC), wherein the Apex Court & other High Courts have clearly held that provisions of law have to be read harmoniously in such a way that no provision is rendered redundant or otiose. If the interpretation taken by the C.I.T.(Appeals) that 3 I.T.A. No.1830/Mds/09 No.1830/Mds/09 deemed transfer 2(47)(v) of the Act has taken place is accepted, the provisions of Section 269 UK of the Chapter XXC would become redundant. The sellers have already filed statement in Form 371 to the Appropriate Authority and consequently as per Section 269 UK r. w.s. 26900 & 269UL of the Act; no transfer could take place unless NOC is issued by the Appropriate Authority. Allowing deduction u/s 54 & 54F by the CIT(Appeals) was therefore against the ratio of the decision cited above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1