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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more