Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Alembic Glass Industries Limited on 10 November, 2006
cites
Section 244 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 240 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 215 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala vs Ambat Echukutty Menon on 6 September, 1979
In the above judgment, the Madras High Court has followed the aforesaid judgments in the case of CIT v. Ambat Echukutty Menon (supra) of Kerala High Court and CIT v. Sardar Balwant Singh Gujral of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the liability to pay interest is on the amount of refund due and the assessee would be entitled to interest on the amount of refund due which includes interest paid under Sections 139(8) and 215 and 220(2) of the Act. While agreeing with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Madras High Court held that the expression "amount" in Section 244(1A) of the Act would include the amount of interest levied and paid under Sections 139(8) and 215 of the Act and collected in pursuance of an order of assessment which was refunded as the expression "amount" is a neutral expression and it cannot be limited to the tax paid in pursuance of the order of assessment.
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Needle Industries (India) Ltd. on 22 July, 1999
26. The third case is in the case of CIT v. Needle Industries (P) Ltd. 233 ITR 370 (Mad). In this case before Madras High court, the original assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was completed on 29th Aug., 1977 and the order of assessment was the subject-matter of appeal before the appellate authority and the Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered refund. The ITO allowed interest under Section 244(1A) partly and declined to grant interest on refund of interest paid under Sections 139(8) and 215. The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the ITO refusing to grant interest on refund of interest charged Under Section 139(8) and 215. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal, on an appeal by the Revenue, upheld the order of the CIT (A) and held that the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 244(1 A) in respect of interest collected under Sections 139(8) and 215 and refunded under the provisions of the Act. On reference the High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. The High Court, while construing the expression "amount" in earlier part of Section 244(1A) held that it would refer not only to the tax but also the interest as the expression "amount" is a neutral expression and it cannot be limited to the tax paid in pursuance of the order of assessment. The High Court held as follows:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation ... on 3 May, 2000
5. Before the CIT (A) it was explained that the tax liability was determined at Rs. 52,92,421 and after adjusting the tax deducted at source Rs. 17,67,504 and advance tax of Rs. 21,75,000 and the aforesaid payment of Rs. 1,75,85,615, a refund of Rs. 1,62,35,698 was due to the assessee after adjusting a sum of Rs. 7,15,141 against interest charged Under Section 234B; that there was a reduction of liability of interest Under Section 234B on which interest Under Section 244A was claimed by the assessee by contending that once the liability along with interest Under Section 234B is crystallized then it is the final amount of refund due which would be eligible for interest; that interest charged Under Section 234B on crystallization of final tax demand became refundable and like any tax paid in excess of final tax demand, it become excess tax paid and would be eligible to interest Under Section 244A; that the assessee has paid all the amounts only towards tax liability, but the Assessing Officer has adjusted the said taxes paid, firstly to interest liability Under Section 234B and then towards tax liability; and that on fmalization of tax demand, the Assessing Officer has denied the interest Under Section 244A on the reasoning that it is refund of interest and hence not eligible for interest Under Section 244A which had caused grave injustice to the assessee resulting in a short refund of interest Under Section 244A. Reliance was placed on the Gujarat High Court decisions in the case of D.J. Works v. DCIT 195 ITR 227, Chimanlal S. Patel v. CIT 210 ITR 419, CIT v. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation 256 ITR 596 and Ahmedabad Tribunal decision in the case of Dhanvi Trading & Investment P. Ltd. v. AO 72 ITD 245 and the order in the case of GSFC Ltd for Asst. Year 1990-91.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Affection Investments Ltd. [Alongwith ... on 19 February, 2003
CIT v. Nirma Limited ITA No. 2517/Ahd/2000 for Asst.Year 1995-96 order dated 30th June, 2006 as against the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal and therefore the matter is required to be referred to the Special Bench.