| Case ID |
39647ea5-12ba-458b-b794-ad58e5ce1f3f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT REFERENCE No. 3 OF 1991 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 07, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Tribunal was incorrect in holding that interest under section 217 was not leviable. The assessee was obliged to file an estimate of advance tax as required under section 209. The failure to file an estimate justified the levy of interest. The judgment affirmed the need for compliance with tax obligations and highlighted that interest is chargeable when the statutory requirements are not met. The decision was rendered in favor of the revenue, emphasizing the legal responsibility of the assessee to adhere to tax regulations. |
| Summary |
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Aesthetic Builders P. Ltd., the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of advance tax and interest under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The key legal question was whether the assessee was required to file an estimate of advance tax when their current income was likely to exceed the threshold specified in section 208. The court found that the assessee had completed an assessment for a previous year with a positive income, thus triggering the requirement to file an estimate under section 209A. The failure to do so resulted in the imposition of interest under section 217. The court's ruling underscored the importance of compliance with tax laws and the consequences of non-compliance, reinforcing that the legal obligations of taxpayers are to be taken seriously. This case serves as a significant reference point for understanding advance tax liabilities and the legal frameworks governing them, making it essential for tax practitioners and businesses alike to remain aware of their tax responsibilities. The decision also highlighted the implications of failing to revise tax estimates and the necessity for taxpayers to maintain accurate records and timely filings to avoid financial penalties. |
| Court |
Bombay High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
V.C. Daga,
A.S. Aguiar
|
| Lawyers |
Ashok Kotangale,
Ms. Shobha Jagtiani,
Prashant Uchol,
D.M. Harish
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Aesthetic Builders P. Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 3557,
(2006) 283 ITR 283
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 149 (Cal.),
Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Shree Sitaram Public Charitable Trust [1994] 207 ITR 1087 (Cal.),
Patel Aluminium (P.) Ltd. v. Miss K.M. Tawadia, ITO [1987] 165 ITR 99 (Bom.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
217,
209
|