TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In DBITA No. 107/2018 "i) Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the charge of interest amounting to Rs. 4,36,630/- by the ld. AO u/s 234B of the Act of 1961? ii) Whether the ld. ITAT is right under law while holding the provisions of Sec. 115JC at par with the provisions of Sec. 115JA and 115JB in respect of liability of payment of advance tax prescribed u/s 208 charging of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of non-payment of Advance Tax which cannot be computed without adjustment of total income as provided under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 115JC and the application of the provisions of said sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of liability of payment of advance tax prescribed u/s 208 charging of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of non-payment of Advance Tax which cannot be computed without adjustment of total income as provided under Sub-section (2) of Sec. 115JC and the application of the provisions of said section only when a report is obtained in the prescribed form from an accountant certifying that the adjusted income and the AMT have been computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIIBA? iii) Whether the ld. ITAT was justified under law while sustaining the findings of ld. CIT(A) for confirming the charge of interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case of Assessee- Appellant who is a person other than a com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le filing the return of income the assessee made payment of alternative minimum tax under the provisions of section 115JC however, while completing the assessment the AO charged interest u/s 234B for not paying the alternative minimum tax as per scheme of advance tax u/s 208. The Ld. AR has contended that the provisions of advance tax u/s 208 is not applicable to the facts of the case and in respect of the tax payment made u/s 115JC. He has further contended that the reliance of CIT(A) on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd 196 taxmann 594 as well as Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Jindal Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 154 taxman 547 is misplaced as these decisions are not on section 115JC but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is not permissible to impose the liability of supposition of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Elphinstone Sps & Wvg. Mills Co Ltd 40 ITR 142 (SC) (ii) Balkrishnan Memon (MK) vs. ACED 83 ITR 162 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Amarchand N Shroof 48 ITR 59 (SC) (iv) Executor & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir Vs. CIT 35 ITR 537 (Bom) To sum up his arguments, the ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 115JC are introduced in the statute with the purpose to tax the other persons in addition to companies paying zero tax. The purpose of this section is limited to pay tax as per this provision and cannot extend to other provisions of the Act. i.e. 208 or 234B. There is vast different i....