TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C was charged. Aggrieved by this intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). It was argued before the learned CIT(A) that in view of the following decisions, interest under ss. 234B and 234C is not chargeable: (i) Priyanka Overseas Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 75 TTJ (Del) 783: (2001) 79 ITD 353 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 186 CTR (Uttaranchal) 144 : (2003) 264 ITR 320 (Uttaranchal); (iii) Haryana Warehousing Corporation vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Del) 859 : (2001) 252 ITR 34 (Del); (iv) Dr. (Mrs.) Devinder Kaur Sekhon vs. Asstt. CIT (1998) 67 ITD 407 (Chd). 3. The learned CIT(A) did not agree with this. By observing that s. 35DDA was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time by Finance Act, 2001. the assessee could not have envisaged that he would become liable for payment of tax even against VRS payments, which were otherwise allowable in view of the above two decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. In any case by way of abundant caution, the assessee paid a further sum of Rs. 90,00,000 on 6th Aug., 2001 as self-assessment tax i.e. much before filing of return on 30th Oct., 2001. He then referred to the decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Priyanka Overseas Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, where interest under ss. 234B and 234C was held to be not chargeable because liability arose because of the amendment in the Act. He also relied on the decision in the case of ITO vs. State Bank of India (20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where the amount of such tax payable by the assessee during that year, as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, is five thousand rupees or more." 7. A combined reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the assessee has to pay taxes in advance in respect of the total income of the assessee, which would be chargeable in a particular assessment year. Now, before the introduction of s. 35DDA, the legal dictum was very clear that the assessee could claim expenditure incurred on account of payment made for VRS by the assessee in view of the binding decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. George Oakes Ltd. and CIT vs. Simpson & Co. Ltd. both cited supra. In both the decisions, it....