Petitioners have prayed to declare the newly inserted proviso to Section 115JB(6) and 115-O(6) of the Income Tax Act in the second schedule to the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 as ultra vires, arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Where a return of income could not be filed by the assessee due to unavoidable circumstances, and assessee proved to have a bona fide belief , coupled with the voluntary payment of tax liability, the Chief Commissioner was not justified in declining the benefit of a waiver of interest to assessee under section 234B.
If employers deposits employee’s Provident fund contribution before due date as referred to in section 43B, employer is eligible for benefit under said section-High Court-Karnataka in case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/s SPECTRUM CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT LTD.
Bhoruka Steel Limited (BSL) was incorporated in the year 1969. The company became a sick industrial company within the meaning of SICA.It was proposed that 30 acres of land along with building and structure to be disposed of.
In this view of the matter, we opine that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the Appellate Commissioner was not justified in reversing the view taken by the Assessing Officer and the order of the Tribunal is proper, does not suffer from any error of law and therefore we answer the questions posed in the affirmative to hold that the Tribunal was correct in taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of deduction even before adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years.
Mere pendency of the public interest litigation would not extinguish the liability of assessee to pay tax on the income received. The amount received by the assessee is not in pursuance to any interim order of the court wherein, the interim order merges with the final order and such payment is contingent depending upon the final verdict in the litigation. In this case, ultimately when the Government Order is set aside, if the assessee repays the money, he is eligible for adjustment of tax paid for the income received or for refund of the said amount. On the pretext that the third party has filed the public interest litigation for the relevant assessment year, he cannot avoid payment of tax on the said revenue receipt. In the event of assessee losing the battle, he will be bound to refund the amount of Rs. 2,06,33,600/- to the Government. If he were to pay tax under the Act, when once that amount is returned, he would be entitled for refund of the said tax or adjustment of tax in future, but that does not enable him to withhold payment of tax on the pretext of pending litigation. In that view of the matter, the approach of the Tribunal is not proper.
When the petitioners are not the cause for statutory appellate authorities to hear and pass orders on interlocutory stay applications petitioners cannot be found fault with. In the circumstances, all chat can be said is that the Union of India must refrain from initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioners in respect of the amounts due in terms of the order impugned in the appeal until final orders in the appeal or order on interlocutory application for stay.
Regard being had to the statement of objections the answer to the question as to whether the bearings supplied by the petitioner to the respondent were, in fact, defective or not being a pure question of fact requires an adjudication after a trial. Hence the defence is not a moonshine defence. Since a triable issue has arisen petitioner cannot but be relegated to the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.
In the present case there was no prior intimation of the proposed action of adjusting the amount of refund due to the assessee towards any other amount due from the assessee. It was an intimation informing the appellant that the amount of refund due for the assessment year 1997-98 stood adjusted against the outstanding demand for the assessment year 1995-96. It would not be same thing as a prior intimation of the proposed action. As the adjustment of the refund amount was made without following the provisions of section 245 and without giving a proper intimation the same was bad in law. The provisions of section 245 being mandatory in nature, any action taken contrary to such provision would be bad in law.
In this appeal it is noticed that the Assessee has in fact after interim order granted by this Court has approached the Revenue and there are certain proposals given by the Revenue to the Assessee and it is submitted by Sri Naganand, learned Senior Counsel that initially the Assessee has deposited Rs.50 crores and as per the order of the Tribunal and further a sum of Rs.175 crores has been deposited after the order passed by this court and a sum of Rs.25 crores will be deposited by 10.02.2013 and modification of interim order to such extent should take care of the interest of both the Assessee and Revenue etc.
