Skip to main content

Himachal High Court Quashes Circular of Income Tax Department

The Himachal High Court Wednesday quashed a circular of Income Tax department regarding deduction of income tax on the award and interest accrued on them by court in Motor Accident Claims cases.              

Passing the orders on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan said the circular of October 14, 2011, issued by the Income Tax Authorities, whereby deduction of income tax has been ordered on the award amount and interest accrued on the deposits made under the orders of the court in Motor Accident Claims cases is quashed.    

“In case any such deduction has been made by respondents, they are directed to refund the same with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of deduction till payment, within six weeks from today”, the bench ruled.        

The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court had put up a note that bank authorities are making tax deductions on interest accrued on the term deposits/fixed deposits made by the Registry in terms of the orders passed by the court in Motor Accident Claims cases.    

The matter was referred to the Finance/Purchase Committee for examination and the Committee at its meeting on May 20, 2014 and it was of the view that since the dispute involved is intricate and public interest is involved, it was recommended that the matter requires consideration on judicial side.        

The recommendation of the Committee was treated as Public Interest Litigation and suo motu proceedings were drawn.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Himachal-High-Court-Quashes-Circular-of-Income-Tax-Department/2014/10/15/article2479388.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more