Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)Section 67 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Ogale ... on 19 April, 1954
11. Submission made by the learned advocate for the respondent that the cheque ought to have been encashed within 90 days is also not well-founded. What is relevant here is payment and not encashment of the cheque. It is a settled legal position that in case of payment by cheque, the payment is deemed to have been made on the date of delivery of the cheque and not on the date of encashment when the cheque is honoured. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the cheque was honoured. Though the cheque was encashed on 3rd April, 1998, the payment must be deemed to have been made on 30th March, 1998 when challan dt. 30th March, 1998 was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent along with cheque. We are therefore of the view that payment of tax was made within the period prescribed. We are supported by a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (1954) 25 ITR 529 (Bom), which lays down law to the effect that when the cheque is not dishonoured but is encashed, the payment relates back to the date of the receipt of the cheque and in law, the date of payment would be the date of the delivery of the cheque.
1