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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Taxpayer gets partial relief on interest waiver under sections 234A, 234B, 234C for delayed filing</h1> <h3>The Chandrasekarapuram Co-op. Whole Sale Stores Limited Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Tiruchirappalli.</h3> The Chandrasekarapuram Co-op. Whole Sale Stores Limited Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, The ... Issues:The judgment involves the rejection of a petitioner's prayer for waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.Details of Judgment:Issue 1: Waiver of Interest under Section 234AThe petitioner sought waiver of interest under Section 234A for Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, similar to the waiver granted for 2005-2006 and 2007-2008. The petitioner argued that returns were filed promptly after receiving Audit Reports, justifying waiver. The Court agreed, citing the CBCT Circular and previous judgments, granting waiver for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.Issue 2: Interest under Sections 234B and 234CThe petitioner claimed financial stress due to pending dues and loans, justifying waiver under CBCT Circular. However, the Court found no grounds for waiver of interest under Sections 234B and 234C, emphasizing timely payment obligations under Section 211. Previous judgments were referenced, highlighting the statutory nature of interest payment.Conclusion:The Court partially allowed the Writ Petition, granting waiver of interest under Section 234A for Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. No waiver was granted for interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The decision was based on statutory obligations and previous legal interpretations.