Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd (Supreme Court)

JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 8, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (rolta_115JA_234B.pdf)

Even s. 115J / 115JA Book Profit Cos liable for advance-tax & s. 234B interest

The Supreme Court had to consider whether advance tax was payable on book profits u/s 115JA and whether for default interest u/s 234B could be charged on the tax calculated on book profits u/s 115JA. HELD deciding the issue against the assessee:

S. 115J/115JA are special provisions. For purposes of advance tax the evaluation of current income and the determination of the assessed income had to be made in terms of the statutory scheme comprising s. 115J/115JA. Hence, levying of interest was inescapable. The assessee was bound to pay advance tax under the scheme of the Act. S. 234B is clear that it applies to all companies. There is no exclusion of s. 115J/115JA in the levy of interest u/s 234B (Kwality Biscuits Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 519 (Kar) (SLP dismissed in 284 ITR 434) considered).

Related Judgements

  1. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  2. Kvaerner John Brown vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
    Read more ›
  3. Agricultural PMC vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is not a “local authority” after insertion of the Explanation in Section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and is consequently not entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the 1961 Act.
    Read more ›
  4. B. M. Malani vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Levy of interest is for compensating the revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the assessee within the time specified therefor. This principle should also be applied for determining whether any hardship had been caused or not. A genuine hardship means a genuine difficulty. It cannot be…
  5. ACIT vs. Elecon Engineering (Supreme Court) 

    The cost for carrying forward the contracted foreign currency not immediately required for repayment is called the roll over charge(s). The argument that s. 43A applies only to cases where there is a fluctuation in the rate of exchange and that since roll over charges are paid to avoid…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*