Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2346 2008 SLD 2346 (2008) 303 ITR 193
Madras High Court

P. D. DINAKARAN AND P. P. S., JANARTHANA RAJA, 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


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

[2008] 303 ITR 193 (MAD.) HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shasenan M. Parpai P. D. DINAKARAN AND P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. WRIT APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 1999 APRIL 17, 2007 Section 90 of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 - Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme In a matter of Samadhan Scheme or any such statutory scheme, as the case may be, the courts have no power to act beyond the terms of the statutory scheme under which the benefits have been granted to the assessee [A.Y. 1995-96] In a matter of Samadhan Scheme or any such statutory scheme, as the case may be, the courts have no power to act beyond the terms of the statutory scheme under which the benefits have been granted to the assessee. The petitioner made applications under section 89 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1999. By order under section 90(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,08,987, as the amount payable by her towards the full and final settlement of tax arrears covered by the declaration under the Samadhan Scheme. According to the petitioner, her total income for the assessment year 1995-96 consisted two segments of income: one was capital gain and the other was income other than capital gain. The income by way of capital gain was taxed at a fixed rate of 20 per cent of an amount of capital gain under section 112 and in respect of other income, i.e., income other than capital gain, it was taxed at a progressive rate prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act and the maximum marginal rate of tax was 40 per cent during the relevant assessment year in question. But the same was resisted by the revenue on the ground that once the petitioner chose the benefit of the Samadhan Scheme, its rights and liabilities would be determined only within the purview of the Samadhan Scheme and not otherwise. Held that even assuming the petitioner would be facing two unintended injuries, it may not be proper for the Court to issue a direction to work out tax liability beyond the expressed terms of statutory schemes. Therefore, the matter was to be remitted to the appropriate authority under the Samadhan Scheme to determine the benefits and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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