<?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>1993 (10) TMI 120 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60961</link>
    <description>An assessee&#039;s appeal was held maintainable even though it had sought reduction or waiver under section 17 of the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964, because that request did not cover the independent challenge to the very chargeability of interest arising from the assessment order. On the merits, interest under section 7C was cancelled: the return and advance surtax estimate were found bona fide in a period of genuine legal controversy over import entitlement receipts, later affected by retrospective amendment, and the advance shortfall was not treated as warranting interest. The assessee&#039;s appeal was therefore partly allowed, with maintainability rejected but interest liability set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:42:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (10) TMI 120 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60961</link>
      <description>An assessee&#039;s appeal was held maintainable even though it had sought reduction or waiver under section 17 of the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964, because that request did not cover the independent challenge to the very chargeability of interest arising from the assessment order. On the merits, interest under section 7C was cancelled: the return and advance surtax estimate were found bona fide in a period of genuine legal controversy over import entitlement receipts, later affected by retrospective amendment, and the advance shortfall was not treated as warranting interest. The assessee&#039;s appeal was therefore partly allowed, with maintainability rejected but interest liability set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60961</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>