Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)K. V. A. L. M. Ramanathan Chettiar By L.Rs vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 11 October, 1972
On the interpretation and on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Ramanathan Chettiar v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 458 (SC), it was only a reasonable inference that the Tribunal had made in the matter that the interest is separate from the refund and the firm had not become entitled to the interest."
Jose T. Mooken vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 September, 1976
5. The plea of the assessee which was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal was that the purchaser, Messrs. Ram Bahadur Thakur (P.) Ltd., became entitled to receive "all refunds out of the monies paid to the tax authorities and ordered to be refunded at any time" and so the respon-dent-assessee, Messrs. Travancore Tea Estates Ltd., Cochin, could not have been assessed on the interest awarded to them under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act. The short question that falls for consideration is, whether the interest awarded to the respondent/assessee under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act shall be considered to be a refund specified in Clause 5(c) of annexure "A-5" agreement. A Bench of this court in Jose T. Mooken v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 894, at pages 907 and 908, stated thus :
Dr. Shamlal Narula vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab on 9 April, 1964
In that view (and that view has been accepted in Lord Wright's passage which has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Ramanathan Chettiar v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 458 (SC) and also in Dr. Shamlal Nanda v. CIT [1964] 53 ITR 151 (SC)), it cannot be said that because the firm had been allowed to take and enjoy the refund it became automatically entitled to the interest on
the refund. We do not think the Tribunal committed any error of law in holding that Clause 4 of the partnership deed refers only to refunds and it makes no reference to the interest payable on the refund.
1