Home › 2013 › October › Page 2
Month: October 2013

Archive for October, 2013

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 1, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 244A: The department is not obliged to pay interest on interest as that is not provided in the law. Sandvik Asia 280 ITR 643 (SC) awarded compensation for inordinate delay on its facts

The judgment in Sandvik Asia 280 ITR 643 (SC) has been misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue. Their view that in Sandvik case this Court had directed the Revenue to pay interest on the statutory interest in case of delay in the payment and that the Revenue is obliged to pay an interest on interest in the event of its failure to refund the interest payable within the statutory period is not correct. In Sandvik Asia, the Court was considering the issue whether an assessee who is made to wait for refund of interest for decades be compensated for the great prejudice caused to it due to the delay in its payment after the lapse of statutory period. In the facts of that case, this Court came to the conclusion that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Revenue in refunding certain amount which included the statutory interest and therefore, directed the Revenue to pay compensation for the same but not an interest on interest. S. 244A provides for interest on refunds under various contingencies. It is clarified that it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 1, 2013 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:


S. 40(a)(ia) TDS: Amendment by Finance Act 2010 permitting TDS payment till due date of ROI is retrospective. Bharati Shipyard 132 ITD 53 (Mum)(SB) disapproved

The intention behind s. 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that TDS is deducted and paid. The object of introduction of s. 40(a)(ia) is to ensure that TDS provisions are scrupulously implemented without default in order to augment recoveries. It is not to penalise an assessee when payment has been made within the time stated. Failure to deduct TDS or deposit TDS results in loss of revenue and may deprive the Government of the tax due and payable. The provision should be interpreted in a fair, just and equitable manner. It should not be interpreted in a manner which results in injustice and creates tax liabilities when TDS has been deposited/ paid and the respondent who is following cash system of accountancy has made actual payment to the third party for services rendered. Also, s. 40(a)(ia), prior to the insertion of the proviso by the Finance Act 2010, was not free from interpretative difficulties and problems. The amended provisions are clear and free from any ambiguity and doubt and will help curtail litigation. The amended provision clearly support the view that the expression “said due date” used in clause A of proviso to the un-amended section refers to the time specified in s. 139(1) of the Act. The amended s. 40(a)(ia) expands and further liberalises the statue when it stipulates that deductions made in the first eleven months of the previous year but paid before the due date of filing of the return, will constitute sufficient compliance. Consequently, the proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) must be treated as retrospective in operation (Virgin Creations referred/ followed; Bharati Shipyard 132 ITD 53 (Mum)(SB) disapproved)

Read more ›