Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 19 January, 1993

Indo Gulf Corporation Limited, vs Assessee on 27 April, 2009

8. In his rival submissions, the ld.D.R. supported the order of the AO and further submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had erred in allowing the interest under Section 244A of the I.T.Act till the date of issue of refund voucher by misinterpreting directions for payment of interest on refunds as given under Section 244A of the I.T.Act i.e. the interest shall be paid only till the date on which the refund is granted, i.e. upto 17.1.2006 in the present case. It 14 was further stated that the refund was granted the moment the concerned officer signed the order regarding payment of interest under Section 244A of the I.T.Act and the interest should have been granted till the date when the order regarding payment of interest had been signed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. CIT (2006) 281 ITR 274(Raj.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roadmaster Cycles Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 July, 2003

6. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the assessee, From the facts discussed above, it is obvious that the assessee had filed the return declaring nil income. Even after making adjustment under Section 143(1)(a), the total income was determined at nil. The only variation in the income declared and returned was due to excess claim under Section 80HHC, Now the issue that requires to be considered by this Bench is whether additional tax is leviable in a case where total income computed as per provisions of the Act remains at nil. Sub-section (1A) of Section 143 provides for levy of additional tax in a case where as a result of adjustments made under the 1st proviso to Sub-clause (A) of Sub-section (1A), the income declared by any person in the return is increased or the loss declared by such person in the return is reduced or is converted into income, The section does not provide for levy of additional tax in a case where the claim made under any of the sections is reduced but the same does not result in either increase in income or reduction in loss, Section 143(1A) refers only to the income or loss declared in the return. It does not refer to the income as computed in accordance with provisions of the Act before allowing deduction under Chapter VI of the IT Act Considering the fact that the total income remained still at nil, we are of the opinion that no additional tax was leviable in this case. The judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT (supra), also supports this view. Thus, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the impugned additional tax charged by the AO. All the grounds of appeal are allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bidar Sahakari Sakkare Krarkhane ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 November, 1998

The Bombay High Court in Saiko Matek Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. D. C. Pant, Dy. CIT & Anr. (1992) 108 CTR (Bom) 108.. (1993) 204 ITR 839 (Bom), Delhi High Court in the case of JK. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 171 :(1993) 200 ITR 58,4 (Del).- and Modi Cement Ltd. vs. Union of India (1991) 100 CTR (Del) 48 : (1991) 193 ITR 91 (Del) Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ralasthan State ElectriCITy Board vs. Dy. CIT (1992) 110 CTR (Raj) 278: (1993) 200 17R 434 (Raj) -1 Allahabad High Court in the case of Indo Gulf Fertilisers & Chemicals Corpn. Ltd, vs. Union of India (1992) 103 CTR (All) 25 : (1992) 195 ITR 485 (All) held that if as a result of adjustment no additional tax is payable if the resultant figure is loss.
Karnataka High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bidar Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 November, 1998

9. The Bombay High Court in Saiko Matek Engineering Private Limited v. D.C. Pant, Deputy CIT [1993] 204 ITR 839, the Delhi High Court in the cases of J. K. Synthetics Ltd, v. Assistant CIT and Modi Cement Ltd. v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 91, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Deputy CIT [1993] 200 ITR 434, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Indo-Gulf Fertilizers and Chemicals Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India [1992] 195 ITR 485 held that if as a result of adjustment the resultant figure is loss no additional tax is payable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Rajasthan State Industrial ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 5 February, 2018

In light of section 244A, Rule 119A and the legal proposition so laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board (supra), and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Arvind Mills (supra), in the instant case, where the assessee has paid the taxes and such taxes have been refunded, the assessee is to be paid interest at the prescribed rate for every month or part of a month comprising the period from the date of payment of the tax to the date on which the refund is granted. If such period is a fraction of a month, the same shall be deemed to be a full month and the interest shall be calculated for the entire month accordingly. Therefore, in order to ascertain for how many months the assessee would be entitled to receive interest, the number of months comprised in the period shall have to be determined and the term 'month' has to be given the ordinary sense of the term i.e. 30 days of period and not the British calendar month as defined under section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act. The date of payment of tax demand has been stated by the ld AR as 29.02.2008, 4.02.2008 and 3.02.2009. The date on which the refund is granted is the date of the refund voucher/order which is signed and issued on 9.6.2010. The AO shall verify the date of payment of taxes and taking the date of grant of refund as 9.6.2010, determine the number of months for which the interest is payable at the prescribed rate of interest in light of above discussions and the interest so determined is directed to be paid to the assessee. The matter is accordingly set-aside to the file of the AO with the said directions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Income Tax Commissioner-Ltu vs M/S Asian Paints Ltd on 11 August, 2011

In support of the above contention, Counsel for the revenue relied upon a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 281 ITR 274 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:38:14 ::: 3 itxa4494.10.sxw CIT Vs. Sutlej Industries Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 331.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.,, Baroda vs Assessee on 12 October, 2012

6. It is clear from the above that in clause (a) the words have been used 'refund is granted'. In our considered opinion, the refund is granted the moment the A.O. has signed the order regarding payment of interest u/s 244A of the Act which, in this case, has been done by the A.O. on 13.12.2002 and, therefore, interest u/s 244A is to be granted till this date only and not up to the date of fresh order. This view of ours gets support from the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High court in the case of Rajasthan Electricity Board vs CIT as reported in 281 ITR 274 (Raj.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1