TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on interest chargeability under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Versus M/s. Steriplast Pvt. Ltd..</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Versus M/s. Steriplast Pvt. Ltd.. - TMI Issues:- Interpretation of interest chargeability under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. Facts and Background:- The appeal arose from an order concerning the Assessment Year 2008-09.- The primary issue was the chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Assessee's Position:- The company, primarily deriving income from dividends and long-term capital gains, filed its original return showing a taxable income of Rs. 31,74,330.- Following a retrospective amendment in Section 115JB, the company revised its return, resulting in a payable Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT).- The company paid the MAT without considering interest under sections 234B and 234C.- The CIT (A) deleted the interest, citing the absence of advance tax liability from the beginning.3. Revenue's Argument:- The revenue contended that interest under sections 234B and 234C should be levied, referencing relevant legal precedents.- The revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the applicability of interest for failing to pay advance tax under certain sections.4. Judgment and Analysis:- The Tribunal considered the unique circumstances of the case where the company's liability arose due to a retrospective amendment.- Citing a High Court decision, the Tribunal noted that as the company had no advance tax liability before the amendment, interest under sections 234B and 234C could not be imposed.- No contrary decisions were presented by the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the CIT (A) order.5. Conclusion:- The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision, emphasizing that the company's liability for interest under sections 234B and 234C was triggered solely by the retrospective amendment, absolving it from liability before the amendment.- The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on June 22, 2012, in favor of the assessee.
TaxTMI 