Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the respondent-company was entitled to refund of excess dividend tax collected under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, despite there being no express application for rectification, and whether the authorities were justified in refusing relief.
Analysis: The levy of additional tax on excess dividend had already been held illegal. The application made to the Income-tax Officer, though not couched in express terms, in substance sought rectification and refund of tax unlawfully collected. The income-tax authorities themselves treated the request as one under section 35 and considered it on that basis. The Commissioner's view that the matter was barred or that the error was not apparent from the record was not accepted, since the relief sought was directed against an unlawful collection that ought to be reversed.
Conclusion: The respondent-company was entitled to refund, and the refusal to grant relief was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order directing refund of the illegally collected tax was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A request for rectification may be treated as valid where, though not express in form, it substantively seeks correction of an unlawful tax collection, and relief cannot be denied merely because the tax authorities characterise the application differently.