CIT vs. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 345 / 2012HC Delhi18 May 20121 pages
For Petitioner: SANJEEV RAJPAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that self-assessment tax paid by the assessee is covered under Section 244A(1)(b) as 'any other case'. The date of the assessment order (29th December 2006) was deemed appropriate for the commencement of interest, even with additions that were later deleted. The court also affirmed that interest on interest is payable.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid self-assessment tax and later received a refund. The dispute arose regarding the date from which interest on the refund should be calculated and whether interest on interest was permissible. The Assessing Officer made additions which were later deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The key issues were the correct date for calculating interest on refund for self-assessment tax and the permissibility of interest on interest.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 244A(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 345/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through : Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate. . . . versus . . . AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD..... Respondent . Through : Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 18.05.2012 . . . 1. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Satlej Industries Limited (2010) 325 ITR 331 Delhi. In the said case it has been held that the self assessment tax paid by the assessee is covered by Clause (b) to Section 244A(1), under the expression ?any other case? used in the said Clause. . . 2. It is noticeable that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has awarded interest with effect from 29th December 2006, i.e. the date on which order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed and not from the date when the self assessment/tax was paid. The order of the tribunal, therefore, takes care of the objection raised by the Revenue that the assessee had filed revised return on 6th June, . ITA 345/2012 page 1 of 2 . 2006 and it is only after filing of the revised return that the assessee became entitled to refund. . 3. We do not accept the contention of the revenue that the date 29th December, 2006 should not be the starting point as the Assessing Officer had made additions in the assessment order. The additions were deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. In these circumstances, the date 29th December, 2006 is justified and the appropriate date. . 4. The next contention raised by the Revenue is that the interest on interest should not have been paid. This issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. H.E.G. Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 331 (SC). In this case it has been held that the interest component will partake of the character of the amount due under Section 244A and it becomes an integral part of the amount of refund due to the assessee. . 5. The appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J. . MAY 18, 2012 . AK . . . ITA 345/2012 page 2 of 2 . . . . . . .

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →