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>High Court allows seized cash adjustment for advance tax, emphasizing compliance with tax provisions</h1> <h3>M/s. Marble Centre International P. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (2), Bengaluru</h3> M/s. Marble Centre International P. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (2), Bengaluru - [2020] 425 ITR 654 (Kar) Issues:1. Adjustment of advance tax against cash seized for tax liability computation.2. Interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act regarding advance tax payment and adjustment.Issue 1: Adjustment of advance tax against cash seized for tax liability computationThe case involved appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the adjustment of advance tax against cash seized for tax liability computation for Assessment year 2007-08. The appellant, a private limited company engaged in trading, had cash seized during a search operation, and subsequently disclosed additional income. The key question was whether the cash seized could be adjusted as advance tax payable for the said assessment year. The assessee had requested to treat a portion of the seized cash as advance tax. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed relief for interest, but the tribunal dismissed the appeal. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 132B and relevant case laws, including a decision of the Allahabad High Court upheld by the Supreme Court, to determine the date of payment of tax. The Court held that the cash seized could have been adjusted against advance tax and directed that the date of payment of tax be considered as the date of the request for adjustment, i.e., 15.03.2007. Consequently, the first substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the quashing of the tribunal's orders.Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of Income Tax Act regarding advance tax payment and adjustmentThe second issue revolved around the interpretation of the Income Tax Act provisions concerning advance tax payment and adjustment. The counsel for the assessee argued that the advance tax liability could be adjusted against seized cash, citing relevant legal precedents and Circular No.20/2017. On the other hand, the revenue contended that advance tax adjustment was not permissible as it was not an existing liability and highlighted the non-compliance with Section 209(1)(a) and Section 210(1) of the Act. The High Court examined the submissions and records, emphasizing the assessee's offer of a specific amount towards advance tax and the prior installment payments. The Court concurred with the view that the seized cash could have been adjusted against advance tax, aligning with the decisions of other High Courts and Circular No.20/2017. Consequently, the tribunal's decision was overturned, and the date of payment of tax was fixed as the date of the adjustment request, i.e., 15.03.2007.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in the case clarified the adjustment of advance tax against seized cash for tax liability computation, emphasizing the date of payment of tax as per the request for adjustment. The detailed analysis of relevant provisions and legal precedents guided the Court in resolving the issues raised by the parties and ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.
TaxTMI 