9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Sections 234B and 234C shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB. For the aforestated reasons, Circular No. 13/2001 dated 9.11.2001 issued by CBDT has no application. Moreover, in any event, para 2 of that Circular itself indicates that a large number of companies liable to be taxed under MAT provisions of Section 115JB were not making advance tax payments. In the said circular, it has been clarified that Section 115JB is a self-contained code and thus, all companies were liable for payment of advance tax under Section 115JB and consequently provisions of Sections 234B and 234C imposing interest on default in payment of advance tax were also applicable – Decided against the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Tribunal, if Tribunal wanted to take a different view from one taken by earlier Bench, as held in case of Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co vs. CIT 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) and CIT vs. L.G. Rama Murthy 110 ITR 543 (Mad)." 3. The opinion expressed by a two judges bench of Supreme Court in the judgment in CIT vs. Quality Biscuits Ltd (2006) 284 ITR 435 (SC) was considered and was overruled by a three Judges bench of Supreme Court in Joint Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rolta India Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 470. 4. The Supreme Court in Joint Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rolta India Ltd (supra) held as follows:- "9. The question which remains to be considered is whether the assessee, which is a MAT Company, was not in a position to estimate its profits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assam Bengal Carriers Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1999) 239 ITR 862 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Itarsi Oil and Flours (P.) Limited v. CIT reported in (2001) 250 ITR 686 as also by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. reported in (2003) 130 TAXMAN 730 which decided the issue in favour of the Department and against the assessee. It appears that none of the assessees challenged the decisions of the Gauhati High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as Bombay High Court in the Supreme Court. However, it may be noted that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Ltd. was confined to Section 115J of the Act. The Order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition in limine f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance tax were also applicable. 10. For the aforestated reasons CIT succeeds in the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 25746 of 2009 (Jt. CIT v. Rolta India Ltd.) as also in the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18367 of 2010 (CIT-3 v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.). Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 459 of 2006 (Nahar Exports v. CIT) and Civil Appeal No. 7429 of 2008 (Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. v. CIT) stand dismissed with no order as to costs." 5. The questions of law raised before us are thus covered by the judgment in Joint Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Rolta India Ltd (supra) in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 6. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
