9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (the "Tribunal" in short), under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,26,000 should be taken into account while calculating the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce tax was due, i.e., March 15, 1972. However, the assessee filed the estimate of current income on March 25, 1972, and paid the sum of Rs. 1,24,000 on March 13, 1972, over and above Rs. 39,062, which had already been paid. The Income-tax Officer levied interest in terms of section 217(1A) of the Act. While doing so he did not take into account payment of Rs. 1,24,000 made on March 13, 1972. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the payment was made before the due date would not wipe out the liability of interest. We had occasion to deal with a similar question in ITR No. 211 of 1980 titled CIT v. Eskay Electronics (India) Limited [2001] 248 ITR 536 (Delhi). Reference was made to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bakelite Hylam Limited v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 145 [FB]. The apex court had also occa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
