Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission passed an order charging interest u/ss 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners challenged the order's maintainability before the High Court. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable, following the Supreme Court's decisions in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi and R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad. Regarding Section 234A interest, the court examined the provisions and noted that while interest is automatic for defaults, courts have waived it in circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Settlement Commission reduced the interest by 50%, citing the petitioners' inability to file returns due to seized papers. However, the court found no reasons for the 50% reduction and waived the entire Section 234A interest. For Sections 234B and 234C interest, the court upheld the levy, following the Gulraj Engineering case. It rejected the petitioners' arguments for waiver based on seized cash and the circular, relying on the Shelly Mehta case. Consequently, the writ petition was partially allowed, waiving Section 234A interest but upholding Sections 234B and 234C interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
