TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a demand raised under section 18A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was entitled to preferential payment under section 230 of the Companies Act, 1913. (ii) Whether the assessment already made could be reopened in the winding-up proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether a demand raised under section 18A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was entitled to preferential payment under section 230 of the Companies Act, 1913.
Analysis: The amount demanded under section 18A was treated as an advance payment in respect of tax, not as tax that had already become due and payable within the meaning of section 230. The later regular assessment and demand superseded the earlier notice, and the amount claimed under section 18A therefore could not retain preferential character in winding up.
Conclusion: The demand under section 18A was not entitled to preferential payment and ranked only as an ordinary claim.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessment already made could be reopened in the winding-up proceedings.
Analysis: The request to reopen the assessment was rejected because no proper application or supporting material had been placed before the Court to justify interference with the completed assessment. The principle applied was that an assessee seeking to displace an existing assessment must show sufficient cause for setting it aside.
Conclusion: The assessment was not reopened.
Final Conclusion: The tax demand did not enjoy preferential status in the winding up, but the completed assessment was left undisturbed, with the tax claims admitted only as ordinary claims.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand for advance tax under section 18A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is not tax due and payable so as to attract preferential payment under section 230 of the Companies Act, 1913, and a completed assessment cannot be reopened in winding up without a proper basis and supporting material.
TaxTMI 
