9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of order and demand notice related to interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Allegation of arbitrary and illegal interest charge due to filing a loss return. 3. Dispute regarding liability to pay advance tax and interest under section 234B. 4. Allegation of improper rejection of rectification application. 5. Challenge to the appealability of the order on interest under sections 234A and 234B. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a non-banking finance company, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order and demand notice dated September 7, 1998, and March 30, 1995, respectively, related to interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The company's business activities were similar to a commercial bank, involving deposits and investments in hire purchase business. Assessment for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 resulted in losses, leading to disputes over the interest calculations. 2. The petitioner argued that interest charged under sections 234A and 234B was arbitrary and illegal due to filing a loss return for the assessment year 1990-91. Citing relevant legal provisions and case law, the petitioner contended that the interest levied was not justified given the circumstances of the losses declared in the returns. 3. The dispute also revolved around the liability to pay advance tax and interest under section 234B. The petitioner claimed that since there was no order from the Assessing Officer under section 210(3) and the income assessed for the previous year was a loss, there was no obligation to pay advance tax or interest under section 234B for the subsequent year. 4. Allegations were made regarding the rejection of the petitioner's application for rectification of mistakes, particularly concerning interest calculations under sections 234A and 234B. The petitioner argued that the rejection of the application on September 7, 1998, was improper as it did not provide an opportunity for the petitioner to address the issues raised. 5. The petitioner contended that the order on interest under sections 234A and 234B was not appealable, leading to the challenge being brought in writ jurisdiction before the court. The petitioner sought relief by quashing the impugned orders and demand notices related to interest calculations, which the court allowed based on the arguments presented and relevant legal precedents cited. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented by the petitioner, and the court's decision based on the legal provisions and case law cited during the proceedings.
|
