Allowed

The Commissioner of the Income v. M/S Siel Ltd.

Delhi HC8 Dec 2017ITA/629/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court answered two Substantial Questions of Law answered in favor of the Revenue, holding that Section 234B and 234C interest provisions apply to MAT payers, relying on Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rolta India Ltd. The Court noted the respondent admitted liability.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the questions of law were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee.

The Commissioner of the Income Vs M/S Siel Ltd. — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~03

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 629/2004

¶4

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Mr. Ashok Manchanda, Advocate.

¶5

versus M/S SIEL LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R

¶7

% 08.12.2017

¶8

This appeal by the Revenue, which relates to assessment year 1997-98, arises from ITA No.1025/DEL/1999 and was admitted for hearing on the following two substantial questions of law:-

¶9

“(1) Whether the provision for charging of statutory interest under Section 234B and 234C are applicable to an assessee paying Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) under Section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

¶10

(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer could not have charged interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act as it was debatable issue?”

¶11

Counsel for the parties accept that the first question of law is covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the

¶12

decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rolta India Ltd. , (2011) 330 ITR 470 (SC).

¶13

With regard to the second question, counsel for the respondentassessee has submitted that subsequently the regular assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed and in terms of the said order, the respondent-assessee has paid interest under both Section 234B and Section 234C for the entire period which is beyond the period covered by the order under Section 143(1). He has placed on record a copy of the income tax computation form dated 26^th February, 2001 in support thereof.

¶14

We take the statement made by the counsel for the respondentassessee on record and hold that the respondent-assessee himself admits that he is liable to pay interest under Section 234B and Section 234C on account of short-fall in payment of advance tax.

¶15

The two questions of law are accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. We also take on record the statement made by the counsel for the respondent-assessee, on instructions, that interest under Sections 234B and C has already been paid. No costs.

¶16

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶17

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶18

DECEMBER 08, 2017 NA

The Commissioner of the Income v. M/S Siel Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of the Income v. M/S Siel Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apex Chamber of Commerce and Industry of NCT Delhi Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Ors.

Digiana Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

E I Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

M/S Parsvnath Overseas Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Saheb Exports Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Magicon Impex P. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi