Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (8) TMI 1193 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Reduction of interest demanded under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Claim of exemption from 'Capital Gains Exemption Bonds' by investment in Government bonds.
3. Imposition of limitation on exemption amount.
4. Bona fide mistake leading to delay in payment of capital gain tax.
5. Justification for reducing interest to 20%.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order directing the assessee to pay 20% of the interest demanded under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, as opposed to the 100% claimed by the Revenue, resulting in a waiver of 20% of the interest demanded. The court noted the reduction was due to the delay in payment of capital gain tax and the circumstances surrounding the case.

2. The assessee, a retired Scientist, sold an immovable property and claimed exemption from 'Capital Gains Exemption Bonds' by investing in Government bonds. Despite rectifying a mistake in providing the Pan number, the bonds were not issued, and the law was subsequently amended, limiting the exemption to Rs. 50 Lakhs. The assessee, unaware of the amendment, deposited Rs. 50 Lakhs and paid the capital gain tax on the remaining amount, leading to the demand for interest on the delayed payment.

3. The learned single Judge considered the facts, statutory provisions, Circulars, and the absence of intent to evade tax. The Judge concluded that the delay was due to a bona fide mistake and reduced the interest to 20%, waiving 80% of the interest payable. The court upheld the Judge's decision, emphasizing the absence of justification to interfere with the well-considered order.

4. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it accordingly. The court maintained that the order passed by the learned single Judge was carefully considered and saw no reason to intervene. Consequently, the appeal and the related application were both dismissed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the court's decision and the reasoning behind it.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates