High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 21 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 21 October, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao C.R.Kumaraswamy


1% was Hxaa cuuar my KARHATAKA, BANGALQRE
Bfi?ED THIS wag 21″ was my acmassn, 2998 { 2

FRESEET

wag HflN’BLE HE. JU$TICE m.3REEnaa3_fiAmT[- ”

any
$9 HflN’ELE MR. aUs?Icg_c.§}xfi§A3ASfi%¥Y’

ITA N0 252 at gags
agwfiam »i%.

3. THE m0mm1sa1aNERf0F.x§t§m3″w3xf;_
a R Bfilfifilfifi 5 “‘: ra -“.1
%GEENE RQhD*
EfiNfl%LORE5’K_ 1

3% $53 ENfiGfiE Tgx as$;¢§R’:Tms3
Whfib aawa ‘.V’g» *.”v”

m R §UI;§:N@’_
Qfififififi naan’-5
sagaagmafi

… fiP?ELLkNTS

“_ £§y $3: ; M’? Sfififififififlba ~anv.;

-CXyw§E mfixwiaz INBERANCE $G.;LTE.
{,’9:vI£1QmA; mryzagwa
~» Nw;22@2W Fiwflfi

fimvzymgykya mega

‘7″m§v,§ waxy RGAB

‘fiflfiflfiflfiflfiflfil

v “«EAE@A$&RE 5&9 Q94.

… RESPGNBENT

‘:Ph:3.a 33?: is fiiad ufmfiéfi-*3 vzsf I.T.2-‘mt,
lfiéi axiainq taut inf firdmr dated ll-l=l3!-2B06dan-mi

C£://,,

T33 ‘Ifim zzaapmnndent failrad ta deduat

remit the T135 amwunt ts.» the revenue.

ifimzsad zmstiaa ms: the: raapanrzientzg

fmznd; that tha :r:es.pmndenE: :’_§’.}..::.’4§I.’v’.’§’.._ra..§V,”_E’.”.”lC.’?…:

mandata C}-f Sac. EAMEA3 .g 1′–I_enc:é’,= “<§ire¢.t'–§=:i 'thé.-7

wefisyarsyr tam ciapazassit
z?-m'tm:'Emt: mt: the TDS 'V

a. Tim 3.19:'. the
mafia: 9f the in
agsyaal at the xaapcrzndent

g-&1*:"i:,1y The dirasztiean to

yay i1":texé"51;. *e;fV aV._§1Q"iV.§"E;Ps} ia mat: aaicie, the

__.2::j@ai: theta "'=»::s::.*fia.:::.~ 32$ rsncmfizmaad. The

§:".:ge;az:::%;i*x1'T=zfi&}:3.%:w«.% pamnitted under the mrder ta

onmr the intamst liability

far s.=:»:w.'§:fi""=:;~§'4tha aaaeaazmnt year. The zevenue

:V".:éés;;.;%.g2;»:;«a;%;m:41" by that mrciesx" af the Tribunal in

the: .i.nVi:m:aat baa filed the apyeal. The

"~."i:'.fVVQ;55;:'2z':1'.~.§'.'f$!fiQfT.'§Z has; mrzzt yrafarxad axry appeal

«against: the c-xzclmr ta: tha extent advezrae tr} its

1?.z1*s';as+r&at .

egg

g” In. tha abava appeal, the fallowing

aubatantiaé qaeatimnfi flf law axe fermulat§d

far wanfiiflaratianz

“i§ Whather tha Tmibunal wag coxfiagfiqifi

balding that mm interaat nae@”§&~géid;3F ?§&}

aaaeaaee fez mam dedumti0fl §f TBS£§eifi§_FC

man8agmam§ial§ aftax having fielfl tha§ W§h@
aaagaaae was liabia ta fiaénat TBS” an ,tha
imtarast camganant paifi by”hfi#ifig ramandafl ta

vazify aextain facfi@ -&ufi .EQ%QfimputG the

intarast? __ Aw_ x

:1} Whéthsig t§£”Txibunéi” waa cmrxeata im
hmldimg fihat th@$§ wag :K;’specific pzeviaion
ta deduct fiES»§efmié.i£aerti@n af Clause ix tn

a%mtimm-1%4§§3§’®f fihé Amt and therefare, the

gawa&a%§& mafia: a h aafide and xeaamnabla cause

‘h$fi;fiQ:,fifidg¢mmi tax and fiance; ma intereat

amfiarf£é&fi$Qni2fil§lA3 was lgviahle when such a

z’=plea wag mat taised? ”

3 “Q ET jTh@, txi%unal. maid. that thfl raspmnfiants

“afQ’um§t anxitled ta pay interest an the

R”wn@éflumtafi TEE amcumt ainca the said liability

=i$ im tha natuxa wf genalty. in this regard,

the txibunal refiigf/Egan tha decisian cf this

mazwmrf: in Mittal 31:94;-1 Ltd. ‘.33. GIT, 240 ITR,

“?$’?.

‘E.. In the Efittal Steal mafia, the pr-:>*e’§;’$a:.¥.. V’*tt.§_.f}

Saw. 2% was urxszier arsmaidsaratien.

g::*:mria;=::y zsemywwexs levy sf §eIifs1ltf3r :2.f._

ciaeflurctimm ia zmt effeaft-:’.~:g*:1 f::a_r” anj; Vxm1i:f§.

zeaaaazfm. Eiaawevaz, sec”. “£31 _:i.a “-a _ d3.at;j5.nct
pxcmvimimzi ta ievjy *~int;érgs”%:._. f«:;>z: cielayed
ressmittanmag It :§.a izxflflgihg ?;?V’1f1i?:$_t’L’.’$’3f.v’£’3’€:V.. v*’C’«**£ revenue

that fair ba};”atég*g.a3′.’ 1SEa§,PE*;uasi91t””_ai:=;’E””‘»..t:aé-.3-1 far any
z’az’aS«:::<:'::«a}/:s';i.}2a:ma.ué::#;–._'E.:1::é-. 5a-ssaasae is liable to

gay interéssgt _ gate of 12% p.a.

4£ imil§2«M§:;-3.j,r;~ f=3×9":avjfur:.-da, xavanue paya interest

i:_a;s» :;!:§'w§ .,vs",~:='s;,;*.::a«s::Vfrs<?'a;_a»2~:. Themfmze; the levy caf

_§.2»;*:.t'fg:.3};3ass'tVv'V :=.3fiE.ilfi»;¥ canzzuzet at any rate be

r;;;:nat1;€;$;:3;.¢Véa;:¥§ a penalty. In that view, the

u_ '%.".';.';!SLi'33.i";:"*.;'«":'§«"'.' 3:*i:*.:,.di:1g :::f the tzrihzmal is $21: amide.

~'7£.'7§*s;»3' q':w.asm3Z:':»r;;.%s =.::»f law ara mwered in favcuzz «of

" x-mrenusa .

1″,’: is: pertinent tax mantra ‘chat: moat Gf

szm *a.r’:E.atim«~3 in than. bicptmz Vahiazia accident =.-arm:

$/

get awmpamaatian balomg ta paarer strata ef

tha mmciaty. They’ may nmt incur any tafiz

1ia;m’.:z.itw.. ‘ma tribuztmi has rightly dim;;_t.=§_;9.”.;~?””

that the imtexeat paid abava Rs.5$,flQQ{?ai$Qt§

ha aylit and apxamd mvar thaJpa%iwd f£m@”thé _

data intaraat is directed :3 ha fiaid fii;i’ita.”

paymamt. if the ap:eafi ‘@§§r ia_’givafi_ in
majar&ty’ af caaea,vftha ffifififignfiant méy mat
Lamar liability ta pay afiy Tfi$.a:Efi §3e sweat,

the zwspmufiant’&amit3 TBS aficfinfi as directed

fly t%e €ribfing;£7tha ¢avenue is dfireated ta
bald. fine dmattci,§fl§uity*v§y’ issuing’ natice ta

ths fififififififi %hQ’hav& fiacaived mompenaatimn ta

5find wit théir tfifi liability an the interest

zémafivéfig if i§«ia fmumfi that there is a tax

‘”;iabiLity>efi the pataan Qameennad, the revenue

‘*xfabm$Lfi zmfiilact the tax firam the parsan

‘mancargad and xafumd tha amaunt to the

“zafigfimflemta So alga, if thaxa is na tax

“~Eiabi§ity on the ;paxaon. mmncerned, the TDS

awiiamtad ahaulfi ha xsfunmed ta the

scaspamrzfiantg. swf zmurse with intmraat in either

‘C?r’1&$rE’ ..

E-a7é:1i?:?:: the ahsmva smaervatiwna, the -1~

:2. a em. 1~:ruw»a=:i »

Tuflg@%§,%

juaqe

$9.3 *