Snowcem vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
Where an assessment is made u/s 115JA of the Act, an assessee is not liable to pay interest for non-payment/shortfall of advance tax u/ss 234B and 234C of the Act. CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd 284 ITR 434 (SC) followed;
(ii) There is a difference between dismissal of a Special Leave Petition and dismissal of an Appeal. While the dismissal of a SLP does not result in merger of the judgment of the High Court with that of the Supreme Court and there is no affirmation, the dismissal of an Appeal results in an affirmation and merger of the order of the High Court into that of the Supreme Court.
Note: In CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd 284 ITR 434 (SC) the Court was concerned with s. 115J of the Act
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Venkat Dhanyamraju
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(100)
-
▼
February
(13)
- Cos may’ve to divulge details of auditors to banks
- Accumulated Balance of Credit in CENVAT account as...
- SEZ an Introduction
- Advances to sister concerns
- advance tax interest u/s 234B and 234C
- Faster service tax refunds on cards
- SEZ + Registers
- SEBI notifies amendments for disclosure of pledged...
- Supreme Court on 'Allotment of Shares' and 'Issue ...
- Companies Bill, 2008: No advisory services by audi...
- Proof of travel not required for claiming LTA: Sup...
- Depreciation not debited to the profit and loss ac...
- ICAI Favour Rotation of Auditors After 3 Years
-
▼
February
(13)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome users to provide your valuable comments