Income Tax : The Income Tax Department explains when interest is payable for delayed return filing, advance tax defaults, deferment of instalme...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article explains the advance tax provisions under the Income-tax Act, including liability thresholds, exemptions, and instalm...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : This article explains the statutory powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to waive or reduce penalties in genuine c...
Income Tax : Request to CBDT to permit filing of Form 10IC after expiration of time limit by condoning delay Issuance of Order under Section ...
Income Tax : All Odisha Tax Advocates Association has filed an PIl before Orissa High Court with following Prayers- (i) Admit the Writ Petition...
Income Tax : At the end of May the Income Tax Return forms are released for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and same been held back by finance mini...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that payments made to directors represented arranger fees and not prohibited sub-brokerage under SEBI Regulations. I...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that an Investigation Wing report alone cannot justify an addition under Section 68 without independent verific...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases could be taxed and affirmed a 2% estimation base...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that application software purchased independently from computer hardware is still covered under the specific de...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that although CSR expenditure is not allowable under Section 37, eligible donations made to recognised institut...
It is a fact that the documents were given to the petitioner only after more than two years. But the reasons stated by the Chief Commissioner would unequivocally indicate that initially the request was made to release the books of account and documents; then the returns were prepared even without the originals.
It is the contention of the assessee that since the income earned by him from M/s Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Limited has been treated as salary, the assessee is not obliged under the Act to pay advance-tax as provided u/s 208 of the Act. The assessee has also contended that as per the provisions of section 192 of the Act in case of payment of salary the entire tax payable has to be deducted by the employer at the time of payment of salary.
The proviso to sub-section (1) to section 209, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 is prospective in nature and not with retrospective effect. The proviso was brought into operation with effect from 1-4-2012, therefore, the assertion of revenue is disagreed with. Even otherwise, the language used in section 209(1) is regarding payment of advance tax in the financial year, therefore, the proviso is not attracted for the impugned assessment year.
The undisputed fact in the present case remained that the tax on the entire income received by the assessee was required to be deducted at appropriate rates by the respective payers u/s 195(2) of the Act. Had the payer made the deduction of tax at the appropriate rate, the net tax payable by the assessee would have been Nil. Thus there was no liability to pay advance tax by the assessee.
No doubt, payment of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory but it is for the Assessing Authority while passing the original assessment order or while passing the reassessment or rectification order to direct payment of interest.
The case of the revenue is that section 234D as introduced on 1st June, 2003 was retrospective in operation by necessary implication. However, as doubts were raised about its retrospectivity, the same was clarified by adding an explanation to section 234D by Finance Act, 2012.
The question is as to whether interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act can be charged for default in payment of advance tax and for deferment of advance tax, respectively, where the payment of tax became due only because of the amendment by way of insertion of Explanation 1(h) to s. 115JB (2) of the Act, the amendment having been made operative retrospectively. It was due to the filing of the revised statement of assessable income,
The short point involved in the present case is whether levy of interest under Section 234A/234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or not. At one point of time there was a doubt on the nature of interest payable by the assessee under Section 234A/234B of the Act. That controversy stood finally settled by a Five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, [2001] 252 ITR 1.
It is undisputable fact that though the Assessing Officer had concluded the assessment way back in 1999, the assessment reaches its finality in all respects only when the appellate forum decided the issues on such an assessment. Consequent on the final findings recorded by the appellate authorities, there was no liability to pay tax under section 207 for the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, levy of interest under section 234C for deferment of advance-tax payable by the assessee does not arise when the income of the assessee had finally been arrived at a loss of Rs. 1.6 crores. Interest paid under section 234C is for deferment of advance tax. When advance-tax paid is refunded and also interest paid under section 234B, there is no logic in making the assessee liable for interest under section 234C, namely, for deferment of payment of advance tax. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to refund interest levied under section 234C.
Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
