Search Results For: B. Sreenivase Gowda J


Fatheraj Singhvi vs. UOI (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 26, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 200A/234E: As the amendment to s. 200A has come into effect on 1.6.2015 and has prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee u/s 234E can be made for TDS deducted prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices u/s 200A for payment of fee u/s 234E is without authority of law

It is hardly required to be stated that, as per the well established principles of interpretation of statute, unless it is expressly provided or impliedly demonstrated, any provision of statute is to be read as having prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Under the circumstances, we find that substitution made by clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. However, we make it clear that, if any deductor has already paid the fee after intimation received under Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest.

United Breweries Limited vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A is applicable even where the motive of the assessee in acquiring the shares is to obtain controlling interest in a company and not to earn dividends

The question arose whether s. 14A applies to a case where the motive of the assessee is to acquire controlling interest in a company and not to earn dividends. The Tribunal followed the judgement of the Special Bench in ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd (2009) 312 ITR (AT) 1 and held that section 14A is applicable even where the motive in acquiring the shares was to obtain controlling interest in the companies. The Tribunal upheld in principle the applicability of section 14A but remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to ascertain from the facts of the case as to how much interest bearing borrowings was utilized to acquire shares in the companies

Top