Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)2CALLT391(HC),(2009)225CTR(Cal)67
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. The petitioners are a residuary non-banking company, and claims to be engaged in the business of offering small saving schemes to the public at large. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge an order passed by the Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of Section 245B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the petitioners' application for settlement. I shall henceforth refer to this statute as 'the Act'. This order has been passed on 31st May 2007 but the petitioners claim to have received the order on 14th June 2007.2. The settlement application relates to three assessment years being 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The petitioners had filed their return on income under the relevant provisions of the Act for the aforesaid three assessment years before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3, Calcutta, who is impleaded as the respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. The said respondent had issued notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP No.626 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION M/S SUPER FORGINGS & STEELS LTD.Versus INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ( IT & WT) & ANR BEFORE: The HON'BLE JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE DATE : SEPTEMBER 25 2012. Appearance: Ms.Dyuti Ray, Adv.The Court: This writ application is directed against an order dated July 2, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission constituted under Section 245B of the Income Tax Act 1961, whereby the petitioner was required to pay an amount of rupees fifty lakhs by July 7, 2012 and furnish proof of payment thereof to the Secretary, Settlement Commission and to pay the balance amount including interest in 36 equal monthly instalments. The grounds on which the order impugned has been challenged have been pleaded in paragraph 22 of the writ petition and the various sub-paragraphs thereunder. The purported grounds are totally vague, devoid of particulars and no grounds in law for setting aside a settlement made by the Settlem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) 6569/2017 SHREE FLAVOURS LLP ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kohli, Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Mr. Kumal Bhari and Ms. Prerna Kohli, Advocates. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for R-1. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate for R-2 & 3. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH % Prathiba M. Singh, J.ORDER0109.2017 1. The powers of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission (hereafter referred to as Settlement Commission) constituted under Section 32 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the CEA), to send the matter to the adjudicating authority by rejecting the application for settlement filed by the... Petitioner, are in question in the present case.2. The... Petitioner No.1 (the... Petitioner), Shree Flavours LLP, is a Limited Liability Partnership fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)627; AIR2001SC3868; (2001)171CTR(SC)1; [2001]252ITR1(SC); JT2001(9)SC61; 2001(7)SCALE333; (2002)1SCC633; [2001]119TAXMAN352(SC); 2001(8)Supreme145
Santosh Hegde, J. CA Nos. 4126-50/2000: 1. In these appeals the question that arises for our consideration is: whether the Settlement Commissioner (for short the Commission) constituted under Section 245B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has the jurisdiction to reduce or waive the interest chargeable under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, while passing orders of settlement under Section 245D(4) of the Act? 2. Earlier, this question arose before the Commissioner in the case of Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal, In re : [1992]195ITR861(SC) wherein a 5-Member Special Bench of the Commission held that under Section 245D(4) or sub-section (6), the Commission does not have the power either to waive or reduce the statutory interest payable under the Act. 3. This view of the 5-Member Bench of the Commission was overruled by a larger Bench comprising of 7 Members of the Commission which held otherwise by the impugned order. It held that the Commission is vested wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, J.1. As a common question of law is involved in both the cases, though they have been heard on two different dates, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In both the cases, the petitioners have challenged the order taking cognizance under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bihar, Muzaffarpur, on March 6, 1992, and February 28, 1992, respectively.2. The only question that has to be determined in this case is as to whether the prosecution for the aforesaid offences should be quashed or at least be stayed during the pendency of the application filed for settlement of cases before the Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of Section 245B falling under Chapter XIX-A of the Act.3. The matrix of facts has to be stated first for appreciating the point involved in both the cases.4. Petitioner No. 1, Shri Mukesh Kumar, petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2003]259ITR449(SC)
M.B. Shah, J.I have gone through the judgments rendered by Brother Pasayat, J. and Brother Dharmadhikari, J. I agree with the views expressed in those judgments. However, for clarifying the position with regard to payment of interest I would like to add as under :As provided under section 245B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Central Government has constituted the Income Tax Settlement Commission for the settlement of cases. The word 'case' has been defined under section 245A(b) of the Act to mean any proceeding under the Income Tax Act for the assessment or reassessment of any person in respect of any year or years and includes appeal or revision in connection with such assessment or reassessment, which may be pending before an income-tax authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 245C is made. Section 245C(1) provides for an application by an assessee in a prescribed form containing a full and true disclosure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)173CTR(SC)78; (2003)3SCC86; [2002]SUPP5SCR424
Shah, J.1. I have gone through the Judgments rendered by brother Pasayat, J. and brother Dharmadhikari, J. I agree with the views expressed in those Judgments. However, for clarifying the position with regard to payment of interest I would like to add as under:2. As provided under Section 245B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Central Government has constituted the Income Tax Settlement Commission for the settlement of cases. The word 'case' has been defined under Section 245A(b) ofthe Act to mean any proceeding under the Income Tax Act for the assessment or reassessment of any person in respect of any year or years and includes appeal or revision in connection with suchassessment or reassessment, which may be pending before an income Tax Authority on the date on which an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 245C is made. Section 245C(1) provides for anapplication by an assessee in a prescribed form containing a full and true disclosure of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Panji
Reported in : (2004)86TT(JP.)anji901
All these appeals, being of the same"assessee, are disposed of, for the sake of convenience, by this consolidated order.The objections raised by the assessee in these appeals relate to the following issues (i) Common objection for all the three assessment years is against the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") while calculating the tax payable by the assessee in the body of the assessment order but without there being any direction or order in any of the assessment order with regard to charging of such interest.(ii) The second objection for assessment year 1994-95 is against the addition of Rs. 50,000 made by considering the investment in purchase of jeep as unexplained, by invoking the provision of section 69 of the Act.(iii) The common second objection, for assessment year 1995-96 and assessment year 1996-97, is against the addition of Rs. 1,110,000 in each year made by invoking the provisions of sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]143TAXMAN373(SC)
Arijit Pasayat J.The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). By the impugned order it was held that the prayer made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-VIII, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT'), to declare the settlement order passed by the Commission on 18-9-1990, to be void and for withdrawing the benefits and immunities granted to the respondent-assessee was not acceptable. The order dated 18-9-1990, was passed under section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The application by the Commissioner of Income Tax for declaration of the said order to be void was made purportedly under section 245D(6) of the Act.The controversy in the present appeal has arisen in the following factual background:A search was conducted in the premises of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') on 8-2-1989...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Cal)261,2005(191)ELT128(Cal),[2005]278ITR274(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. All these matters were heard together as the points involved therein are identically the same. Therefore, the decision to be rendered will cover all these four matters.2. The facts are more or less identical. On different dates the learned Settlement Commission of the Income-tax Department accepted the proposal of the assessees for settlement of the cases and dues of the respective petitioners. In the case of Smriti Properties Private Ltd., the assessment years related to 1989-90 to 1994-95 and the orders were passed by the Settlement Commission by the Bench of three learned members on March 16, 1999. By the said order, interest which would ordinarily have been chargeable under the various provisions of the said Act was either partially or fully waived.3. On March 10, 2003, the income-tax authorities filed a miscellaneous petition before the Commission whereby it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the said orders need rectification in view of the de...
Tag this Judgment!