<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (8) TMI 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15670</link>
    <description>Interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as part of &quot;tax arrears&quot; for settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, because the Scheme covered tax, penalty and interest determined on or before the cut-off date and remaining unpaid. The liability arose automatically on default in payment of the demand notice amount, so it did not depend on a separate adjudicatory order. The amount payable under the Scheme had to be computed strictly under its statutory formula, and the declarant&#039;s omission to specifically include the interest in the declaration did not prevent its inclusion. The CBDT clarification was noted as supporting this position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:51:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15670</link>
      <description>Interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as part of &quot;tax arrears&quot; for settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, because the Scheme covered tax, penalty and interest determined on or before the cut-off date and remaining unpaid. The liability arose automatically on default in payment of the demand notice amount, so it did not depend on a separate adjudicatory order. The amount payable under the Scheme had to be computed strictly under its statutory formula, and the declarant&#039;s omission to specifically include the interest in the declaration did not prevent its inclusion. The CBDT clarification was noted as supporting this position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>