Law:

Section:

Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Advance payment of tax - Assessment year 1951-52 - Petitioner/assessee was incorporated as private limited company - ITO assessed petitioner for relevant assessment year and issued demand for appropriate tax due - Subsequently, ITO rectified assessment under section 35 of 1922 Act and made certain addition in respect of interest chargeable under section 18A(8) of 1922 Act which by mistake had been omitted to be included - Assessee's revision was dismissed by Commissioner - On writ it was found that from the assessment year 1933-34 up to and including 1938-39 a firm carrying on business at Madras, was treated as agent of assessee, then a non-resident corporation, and income of assessee accruing and arising in British India was assessed in the hands of this resident-agent, firm - Whether, on facts, petitioner was not a person who had not hitherto been assessed, since it was admittedly assessed to tax during period 1933-34 to 1938-39 - Held, yes - Whether fact that during period 1939-40 to 1950-51 it was not assessed to tax did not bring it within section 18A(3) of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether if petitioner was not bound to have voluntarily submitted estimate within section 18A(3) of 1922 Act, its case could not fall within section 18A(8) of 1922 Act - Held, yes - Whether, demand for interest was therefore without legal basis - Held, yes FACTS The petitioner was incorporated as a private limited liability company. The ITO assessed the petitioner for the assessment year 1951-52 and issued a demand for the appropriate tax due. Subsequently the ITO issued notice to the petitioner under section 35 of the 1922 Act to show cause why this assessment should not be rectified by the addition of a further sum to the tax as ascertained subsequently, the addition being stated to be interest chargeable under section 18A(8) of 1922 Act, which by mistake had been omitted to be included. The petitioner objected to the proposed rectification on several grounds. But these objections were overruled and a sum representing the correct figure for interest, was added to the tax demand. Against this order the petitioner preferred a…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492