Search Results For: V. S. Hadade


CIT vs. Oryx Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221: A reading of s. 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” in s. 2(43) leads to the irresistible conclusion that the phraseology “tax in arrears” in s. 221 would not take within its realm the interest component. The AO can impose penalty for default in making the payment of tax, but the same shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Tax in arrears would not include the interest payable u/s 220(2) of the Act

Reading Section 221 in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that the aspect of default in payment of tax and the amount of interest payable are treated as distinct and separate components. The section categorically and specifically states that when an Assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making payment of tax, he shall in addition to the amount of arrears and the amount of interest payable under SubSection 2 of Section 220, be liable, to pay penalty, however the amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The terminology “default in making a payment of tax and amount of interest payable” are considered to be separate for imposition of penalty and penalty is to be levied on account of default in making a payment of tax. However, the total amount of penalty shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. The said penalty for non payment of the tax is in addition to the levy of interest under SubSection 2 of Section 220. Under no principle of interpretation, the arrears of tax as laid down in the said Section would include the amount of interest payable under SubSection 2 of Section 220. The amount of penalty will have to be restricted on the arrears of tax, which would not include the interest component charged under Section 220(2) of the Act

CIT vs. Samson Perinchery (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 5, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 3, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice whether the penalty is being initiated for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' or for 'concealment of income' is fatal. It reflects non-application of mind and renders the levy of penalty invalid (Manjunatha Cotton 359 ITR 565 (Kar) followed)

The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] – wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice

Top