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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
Post a Comment
Read more