Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1997 (8) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows : The petitioner under the orders passed by this court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 70 of 1971 deposited a sum of Rs. 11,49,946 with the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, being the difference of the cane price. The said deposit was made during the assessment year 1972-73. Sin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not levied. The matter was dealt with by the Income-tax Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) who on the basis of rule 40(1) of the Income-tax Rules. (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", restricted the interest chargeable under section 215 for a period of eighteen months from April 1, 1972 to September 30, 1973. Thus, out of the interest of Rs. 3,75,795 a sum of Rs. 1,85,675 was waived under ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id amount of Rs. 11,49,964. The petitioner did not know that the said money would be refunded back to him and he had to pay any advance tax on the same. If the money was available with him by way of profit in the year 1972-73 he would have paid the advance tax. However, since the money was lying with the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, under the orders of this court, the question of payment of....