TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....22862 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order'). By the Impugned Order, the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner has been allowed with the following observations:- "8. I am, in the light of the facts as above, of the considered view that even though the remittance was styled as an 'adhoc' remittance, the use of such nomenclature by itself, would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee had merely parked its funds without any justification as, in the present case, the petitioner has effected remittances in anticipation of liabilities of tax, interest and penalty. This apprehension of the petitioner is also not misconceived as the officer has also adopted a stand disallowing its c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 244 A, explained the earlier Judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia (supra). While laying down clearly that the grant of interest has to be strictly in terms of the applicable statutory provision, the Bench also observes that in a situation where the statue does not provide for a refund, even under general law, an assesses, in appropriate cases, has to be compensated for depreciation of capital. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted the smount in question on 28.06.1996. I am thus of the categoric view that it is entitled to interest in regard to the same, as claimed, in terms of section 244 & of the Act." 2. In the said Writ Petition, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner had p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shortfall in payment of taxes and consequential levy of interest and penalty that the amount of Rs. 2 crores had been remitted, not adhoc but rather, anticipated." 5. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was entitled for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- which was paid by the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner in anticipation of the stand of the Department for the Assessment Year 1993-1994 as mentioned above. 6. It is noticed that the issue as to whether the provision made by the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner for voluntary retirement scheme was to be included in the taxable value or not, ultimately reached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, "ITAT") in I.T.A.Nos.1747 to 1749/Mds/2000 for the Assessment Years 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is captured below:- ORDER Giving effect to the order of ITAT cited, the revision order dated 31.07.2001 is revised as under:- (Figures in Rs. ) Total income as per revision order dated 31.07.2001 under the head 'Business' 17,12,47,696 Add: Excess depreciation @ 40% on Plastic Moulds withdrawn by ITAT 18,48,987 17,30,96,683 Less: Relief allowed by ITAT (I) Rent paid on transit flats 2,09,069 (II) Depreciation on Lucknow property 74,068 Income under the head business 17,28,13,546 Less: Unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from A.Y.94-95 available for set off against the income 4,17,06,551 Business Income 13,11,06,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- paid by the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner on 28.06.1996 towards the advance tax liability of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner for the Assessment Year 1998-1999. 10. As per the aforesaid Order dated 03.11.2005, the amount to be refunded to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner/Assessee was Rs. 3,16,94,262/- out of which Rs. 2,27,73,405/- was adjusted towards the tax liability for the petitioner for the Assessment Year 1998-1999. The computation on the taxable income of Rs. 13,34,49,830/- by an Order dated 03.11.2005 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax giving effect to order of the ITAT in ITA.No.1747 to 1749/Mds/2000 for the Assessment Years 1994-1995 to 1996-1997. 11. It is the case of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner....