TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>High Court dismisses 32 appeals on interest under Income Tax Act. Legal precedent upheld.</h1> The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed 32 appeals by the revenue/appellants regarding interest charged under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ... Interest u/s 234B - ITAT has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observing that there is no infirmity in the order of the CITA deleting the interest charged under Section 234B of the Act - In the return, exemption under Section 10(10CC) of the Act was claimed. The Assessing Officer (for short A.O.) noticed that no exemption under the said provision of the Act was available to the assessees and a notice under Section under Section 148 of the Act was issued - A.O. did not allow the exemption on the perquisite claimed by them and after applying principle of multiple stage grossing up’, the income was assessed as mentioned the Assessment Order – order of ITAT maintained – revenue appeal dismissed. Issues:Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against ITAT order regarding interest charged under Section 234B.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Uttarakhand involves 32 appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directed against the ITAT order dated 26-4-2007. The controversy in these appeals revolves around the interest charged under Section 234B of the Act. The ITAT upheld the order passed by the CITA, stating no infirmity in deleting the interest charged under Section 234B. The primary question of law to be answered in these appeals was whether the ITAT wrongly held that the interest under Section 234B is not payable after tax deduction at source. The assesses, employees of a company, claimed exemption under Section 10(10CC) of the Act, which was disallowed by the A.O., leading to appeals before the CITA and subsequently the ITAT.The respondent's counsel argued that the appeals are covered by previous Division Bench judgments of the Court, specifically referring to cases like Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. [2004] 271 ITR 0395 and The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun Vs. M/s Oil Ltd. The counsel for the appellants-revenue conceded to this fact. The High Court, after perusing the cited judgments, noted that the question of law was answered against the revenue in those cases. The Court found the controversy in the present appeals to be resolved by the Division Bench's order dated 8-8-2008 in The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Oil Ltd. Consequently, all 32 appeals were dismissed on merits in line with the 2008 judgment. The Court's decision was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench, emphasizing the consistency in the legal interpretation across similar cases.In conclusion, the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed all 32 appeals preferred by the revenue/appellants concerning the interest charged under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment relied on previous Division Bench decisions to resolve the controversy and provide a consistent legal interpretation. The appeals were deemed liable for dismissal based on the precedents established by the Court in similar cases, ensuring uniformity in legal outcomes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
