| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2850 2010 SLD 2850 (2010) 327 ITR 589 |
Gujarat High Court
D.A. MEHTA AND H.B. ANTANI, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
D.A. MEHTA AND H.B. ANTANI, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Hakimchand D. Chotai
v.
Commissioner of Income Tax
Law:
Section:
Section 68 of Finance Act, 1997 - Voluntarily disclosed income not to be included in total income Where assessee had made a declaration under VDIS 1997 declaring income on which part of tax was paid within time and part of tax was beyond statutorily prescribed period of three months from date of declaration, Commissioner, was justified in accepting declaration only in relation to income relatable to tax paid in time. [Partly in favour of assessee] Hakimchand D. Chotai v CIT [2009] 221 CTR (Guj) 589 In view of the decision in the case of Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT [2003] 259 ITR 1 (SC)., where the assessee had made a declaration under VDIS 1997 declaring income on which part of tax was paid within time and part of tax was beyond the statutorily prescribed period of three months from the date of declaration, the Commissioner, was justified in accepting the declaration only in relation to the income relatable to tax paid in time. S.N. Soparkar and V.K. Patel for the Petitioner. Manish R. Bhatt for the Respondent. JUDGMENT D.A. Mehta, J. : This petition challenges the action of respondent authority in not issuing certificate of the full amount disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS); alternatively, the action of respondent authority in not refunding the sum of Rs. 7,42,000 paid as tax and interest under VDIS has been challenged. 2. Heard Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned senior advocate for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned standing counsel for respondent authority. It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue is no longer res integra by virtue of the decision rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Hemalatha Gargya v. CIT [2003] 182 CTR (SC) 107 : [2003]259 ITR 1 (SC). 3. It is an admitted position between the parties that the petitioner made a declaration disclosing income of Rs. 34,50,000 on which total tax (inclusive of interest) payable was Rs. 10,77,000. The declaration was made on 8th Dec, 1997. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 3,35,000 towards tax on 8th Dec, 1997. The balance amount of Rs. 7,00,000 towards tax and Rs. 42,000 towards interest was…
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