Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Section 217 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Geeta Ram Kali Ram And Suresh Chandra on 23 August, 1979
The AAC, however, was of the opinion that charging of interest under the above section is not appealable in view of the decisions of the other High Courtsas reported in CIT v. Geeta Ram Kali Ram [1980] 121 ITR 708 (All.)
K.B. Stores vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 August, 1975
(FB), K. B. Stores v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 505 (Gauhati) and Mewa Lal v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 598 (All.) According to the AAC, the appeal was not entertainable. The same was dismissed. The contention before us, as made by the learned counsel for the assessee, is that the ITO cannot charge interest while passing order giving effect to the directions rendered by the Commissioner, as that order of the ITO was not a regular assessment. It is submitted, therefore, that the appeal by the assessee should be allowed. Further more, it is submitted before us that only when interest was charged originally, in the course of regular assessment, the same may be provided under Section 215(3) of the Act. But is it contended that once regular assessment was completed and interest was not charged originally, the same cannot be charged as it was done in the present case.
Kundanlal Maru vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 17 March, 1981
In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kundanlal Maru v. CIT [1982] 135 ITR 84. In that case, the AAC set aside the order of the ITO as a whole with the direction to the ITO to apply his mind afresh to the problem and process the whole matter after giving a fresh opportunity to the assessee and to frame an assessment order in accordance with law. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that as per the direction of the AAC, the whole assessment order was open to the ITO and the whole matter, without any limitation, was at large before the ITO and sequel to the order of the AAC, the assessment order of the ITO was non est. The facts of the case before us are distinguishable, inasmuch as the Commissioner had passed a specific direction under section 263, in respect of the inclusion of the entity to deposit only.
Bhikhoobhai N. Shah vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-V on 7 September, 1977
2. For the sake of convenience, the second ground is taken up at the first instance. The contention of the assessee is that the ITO could not have charged interest under Section 217(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the time of passing the order giving effect to the directions contained in the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. From the order of the ITO, it is seen that the original assessment completed earlier was cancelled by the Commissioner and the ITO was directed to include the refund of annuity deposit of Rs. 6,981 received by the assessee under Section 280D of the Act, as the same was not included in the original assessment order. After the Commissioner canceled the order of assessment, the ITO completed the computation account of the total income of the assessee by including the above sum. While passing the order giving effect to the direction of the Commissioner, as stated above, the ITO charged interest under Section 217(1A). The brief submission made on behalf of the assessee on this point against the action of the ITO. Before the AAC, it is submitted that the ITO erred in direction to charge interest, as mentioned above, and that appeal of the assessee can be taken up before the appellate authority as decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bhikhoobhai N. Shah v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 197 (Guj.)
Section 280D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Gannon Dunkerley And Co. Ltd. on 14 July, 1987
and also by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., [1979] 119 ITR 595.
Mewa Lal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 March, 1978
(FB), K. B. Stores v. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 505 (Gauhati) and Mewa Lal v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 598 (All.) According to the AAC, the appeal was not entertainable. The same was dismissed. The contention before us, as made by the learned counsel for the assessee, is that the ITO cannot charge interest while passing order giving effect to the directions rendered by the Commissioner, as that order of the ITO was not a regular assessment. It is submitted, therefore, that the appeal by the assessee should be allowed. Further more, it is submitted before us that only when interest was charged originally, in the course of regular assessment, the same may be provided under Section 215(3) of the Act. But is it contended that once regular assessment was completed and interest was not charged originally, the same cannot be charged as it was done in the present case.
1