9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chief Commissioner that the assessee was required to file a revised return voluntarily after the judgment of this court had been reversed in appeal - Moreover, the tax that became due in terms of the revised returns had also been paid within time. No delay could, thus, be attributed to the assessee – Thus, interest levied on the assessee under section 234B is waived - - - - - Dated:- 12-4-2005 - Judge(s) : N. K. SODHI., K. L. MANJUNATH. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N.K. Sodhi C.J.- M/s. Balakrishna Breeding Farms Pvt. Ltd., is the assessee before us and the relevant assessment years are 1993-94 to 1995-96 and 1997-98. It has filed these writ appeals against the order dated December 1, 2003, passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eries P. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174. This judgment was pronounced by the apex court on March 24, 1999, and it was held therein that units engaged in poultry farming or hatcheries do not manufacture any article or thing and as such they are not entitled to the special deduction under section 80HHA or 80-I of the Act. After the pronouncement of the judgment in Venkateswara Hatcheries' case [1999] 237 ITR 174 (SC), the Assessing Officer issued notices dated December 27, 2000, to the assessee under section 148 of the Act for all the relevant assessment years stating therein that its income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and therefore, he proposed to assess/reassess the same and called upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granting partial relief to the assessee observed as under: "The decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rahebar Farms v. CIT was pronounced on October 23,1992, which was in favour of the assessee and the Supreme Court's decision reversing the above High Court's decision was pronounced on March 24, 1999. In view of this, the petitioner is entitled for waiver of interest as per para. 2(d) of the Board's order under section 119(2)(a) in F. No. 400./234/95/IT-(B), dated May 23, 1996 and January 30, 1997. As the petitioner claims in the waiver petition that the advance tax was paid based on the decision of the Karnataka High Court, it is entitled for waiver of interest up to the date of reversal of this decision. Considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the benefit of special deduction under sections 80HHA and 80-I of the Act basing its claim on the decision of this court dated October 23, 1992, in Rahebar Farms's case. The Assessing Officer accepted the claim and granted the exemption. The assessments were completed under section 143(3) of the Act and the assessee was not required to pay any advance tax on the amounts which were claimed as deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. As already observed, the judgment of this court dated October 23, 1992, was reversed by the apex court in Venkateswara Hatcheries's case [1999] 237 ITR 174 on March 24, 1999, and the amounts which were earlier claimed and allowed as deductions became liable to tax. There is no provision in the Act r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
