Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.56 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer vs A.V. Thomas & Company on 5 July, 1984
2. We have heard Shri Velu Pillai, the learned counsel for the assessee and Shri V. R. Sudhakaran Pillai, the learned departmental representative Shri Velu Pillai relied upon the decisions of the Kerala High Court in A. V. Thomas & Co. Ltd.s case (supra) and also the latest decision of the same High Court in ITO v. A. V. Thomas & Co. [1985] 44 CTR (Ker.) 77.
K.T. Ahammed Kutty Haji & Bros. vs Agricultural Income-Tax Officer And ... on 8 March, 1976
"The counsel relied on the decision reported in A. K. Haji v. ITO [1982] 31 CTR (Ker.) 278 : [1983] 141 ITR 120 (Ker.). The facts of this case are substantially different from the facts of the present case. The crucial difference is that in [1982] 31 CTR (Ker.) 278 : [1983] 141 ITR 120 (Ker.) there was no occasion or a refund of tax. The assessee did not pay the tax as demanded under section 156 of the Act. In such a case, the department is fully justified in making the demand for payment of interest. This Court rightly held so ....." (p. 81).
A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward And Ors. on 1 July, 1982
After going through the decision of the Kerala High Court, we are of the opinion that the facts in A. V. Thomas & Co. Ltd.s case (supra) as well as A. V. Thomas & Cos. case (supra) are almost identical with the facts on hand.
Section 156 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Malayala Manorama & Co. Ltd. on 22 October, 1982
As regards the arguments that the CBDTs Circular No. 334 dated 3-4-1982 levy of interest under section 220(2) was permissible when the original assessment is set aside, we can do no better than citing the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Malayala Manorama & Co Ltd. [1983] 143 ITR 29 which expressed the following about the said circular :
K.P. Abdul Kareem Hajee vs Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward And Anr. on 9 February, 1982
In view of the latest decision of the Kerala High Court in A. V. Thomas & Co.s. case (supra) which distinguishes the earlier decision in K. P. Abdul Kareem Hajees case (supra), we here to hold that the order of the learned Commissioner passed under section 263 which is assailed before us in bad under law and, therefore, has to be set aside.
1