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

V_'"'_3&NGfi;QREz

1

H'? THE HIGH E2fi?'§F..'I' QB' E§.%KE*i'.F:!K'fiF.fi; E«P:NE.?'1I.fiB.fi
i"}.3'4§.MEE3 TE-{ES TEE Elm': DRY SE' QIQTOEER, 3993

¥'E.E 3EH"£'

wag mmm*BE MR. JUSTICE H.sREEnHAR é§m;; 'R

mm

€33 HQm*BLE MR" JfiST1CE a.i;3fim§3As$3a$'~""

I?& We 319 mg zfioé
Bsrmamw '- M

1 was flflfifllfifiififlfifl fit :$c@mfiV$a$>_
m R BUILDING T *-*s .'-=V'

   

{K3

WEE zmwfififl E@Q§k1FFX§ER {TBS}
W&Rfl 16w3- V _' '.¥

5 aQEU:L§£w3"'
@fiflEfi5,RQflfi"«NM. .....

. APEELISQWS

'1p*'gEy73;i : M V saafiamaaa ~a5v.;

"* THE §%§TED xmsuaamcs $9., LTE.,

Eiviflfflwfii QFFEGE~l

"« F;B;§m.27&3
»_ _&m£1 mmasxmw Raga
*»_ EANQQLQRE 356 max

... EEESFQIWENT
'mm ETA :3 filed u:'$.26iI"§-A mf I.'E'.A.1'?25fEzN{§s'2%3G5, for the

<:é////W



fimamfimmant Egan 2088-2661, ytayi that this
Han'bia fiauxt may hm plgaaad ta:

ii fiwrmaiata thg aubatantial questiflna mf law
fitatafl tharain, ii} allww the appeai and Eat

asida the cxdar gagged by the ITAT EangalQrgW_
in IE&.mm.l?25fBNQ/Efififi, dated &.$.2GGTcQgfihfig~.
the urdexa af the Eypallate 59mmisaiQn§r"afidf# "

Enmmma Tax Officax, fiTD3};Wardf16£33M
Baagalara. *"~W% 'V4

Thia apgeal caming on f0:~héér§n§"th13'g 
fiay, K snsnxaa nan; VJ.,' daliverad%.th3\,'

fmilmwimg:

The zwapomdanfi a_§§fi§fixgn§§_ Céfigfinyy,

wuxauamt ta £h$ §ka£d mafiejunda£ the M.V. act

has ymid Qdmp§ms$§iQfia£& the victim afi fiotar

vahiw1£"Ecmifi@n§Q The awazfi amwunt comaistad

 _af't%é a®§%m$atimn anfi intarast liability.

 '1"'1':'é{'j_:3:..*.%:z§<;:v"s;*3'..aj.z:a2':.$ car sac. 19£§zfF1.;:{3}€ix}

"._4m§mfiafi5Ht3 that Whfifl tha remgondant pays

"«;$fifi@fié5fi liahility mfira thfifl %s.5U,QGQf*¥ it

 *, $h®ald afidflfit T85 hm am extent mi 10.3% Qf

"a »7tm@ intaraat u¢myanent* In dafault, the

xamymmdent bacmmaa liable ta gay the said
ammmmh tn the rsvenue ufa 2&1 mf the I.T. Act

with infiaxeat amfi yaaalty.

Q?



 

1&1

$3., The xewpranfimmi: failad ta deduct 

raimiiz the TBS a.mm.:.:m'; tm the zavanue. 

iasumfi m:v1.:.i.em ta than mE=:=pm:::»:3;ez1t, afits,t_V'_7sngq'Li_i;ff'

fmn.-uni that tha reapmnxient  

msanfiatsa aafi Sea. lauiiajz . _.Hana9*,, :.1i1:et,'§':.+a§;i" "t:h£: "

mmawpazzy ta». tiapcaait th9"V"y:fi'£§S  
in'te:z::aat an tbs T165  V' A V

4. The :::'.z.*;:,  the
cmziar azsf they 'li';h&:; «§'5i§?'-éi'ExQ$at",.¥_..T.fT':£::ibunal in

ay}geaE at étiaév $i§;.s.t4&_*ii'a§é' 'iihe renatpcmdant

partiy  3._«:t»§-»."%é'v;."€_--    The dixeution ta

gag; intm:'u*.=.aV_35'?1':._ "tizfié is 391': aaide, the

reg': ;s;2s*.{:"_ i'.:E..*V122.AA '«':'3"t:it:'é:1': 15 canfirmed. The

"'_z~é-'~a§:§i?y'£e;£¥§:  gaxmglttmzi undaz: the mcdm: ta

aTp:%,::;:::-_  mm: tha intezeat liability

 far ev~=e:;.a:21V_v«;:.;::' F'tha aaaaasmarzt year. T3119 revenue

"* :}' A"--¢:£g*a§Ar;i.mv*.éd$1' by the mrdex am tha Tribunal in

°ri}&3;*_g':Lr:.é;: étlze interest haa filed the appeal. The

:rr; its

intearéefit .. (1%?



mmurt in Mittai Stag} Ltd. Vs. CIT, 2&9 ITR

?Q?.

?. Tn the Mittml Steel mafia, tha pra?i$§ E@5; x

Sam. 2%} was ands: cQm3idezati9n. ,T$§ a%id

pmavifim am@mwar5 lqvy mi y9fi§ltf'§fi_Efi§ T3$ _1

dadumtian ia amt affieated £Qr= any .fiaiiQ 3

xfiaawmu Hwwvar, aac. Efilflé} 13 an fiiatgnct
ynmvifiian ta lav? "aintarfist , far deiayed
rwmittanma. it im in fiheifirfimfiiééjwf revenua
that far haiatafi' §aymaht"_fif= tax flax any
xaaammabifi: dada&; th§*¢a5a&aaee ia liahla tfi

gay imtéraSt '»fit@*fihé"" rate af' 12% p.a.

Similagiyg f¢f"£@fufidag xevemne pays intareat

* t&".tfia Vfifiéesaae. Tharetara, the levy at

ifltexmatf mfg %3§l£1&3 mammmt at any rate be

"  cana€ru%fl" $£A a. ganalty. In that visw, the

" Q"afintr% fihdig mf the txifiunal is set aaida.

"?h£"Qm%ati®n5 mi law ara amawaxad in favmur 0f

'"tme revenue.

$. It ia ygrtinent ta meta that most mf
tha Wfimtima in the Matar Vahicla aacident whm

gat cmmpenaatiwn belmmg Em pmwret atrata af



tha amaiaty. ?hay* may' mat incur any tax

liahifiztym ?hfi tribunai hflfi rightiy rfliractgfi

that the intareat paid abcmsa 3E£5.fiD,,Q{}Q,i- 

be apiit and apxeafl wvex tha periad f:%fi th§f*

5.7.1

. . ” I

rfiata :;.n’%,::.-:a;r»a:a’I:: is sziirectmfi zm 1:;gpa.:’.¢«:;”‘1:v.~.:;:{Lj’f.;.,”‘

tag

paymamt. If aha apreafl Qvaxiwifi givém “im’%T

majmzi%y’ mf caaea; the xgagundént *$a§vw§gt
influx liability ta yay any TES., In the efiant,
tha rmaywndemt t$m1taT§EE am¢fint as dixemted

My Khfi Txibunalg thawx£v$mu§’ia’fi;faetwfi to

hmifi was $mfit@ §fiqu$@E_hy isauing nmtice to
tha §ar$&m5.wflm’h&Vé.£w¢givaa eampansatiun ta

find mat Eheir fix lfifibility an the intaraat

_raa%iW@d;~Ef i%_iB founfi that there is a tax

K liahi§ity:0n_t&fiv§éks%n csncerned, the ravenua

‘ahafihg ,dmmL§:t tha tax tram tha peraam
,;=’:::»_;w’e-5.5: 1:”n3;é;– ” .1:’afund t1:s.sr.-2 emwmxt t 0 the
$ea3mmdaatQx’$@ alamfi if thexe is na tax

_liabii1t§”-Eh tug ;p@r$@m. &fincaxned, the TES

y,@mll%mfi¢fi3 afiwuld ha xefundad ts the
V’;Qapm$flant, mf mmmrsa with intareat in Either

with tha abmrva czxbaarvaticana, the appeal

3. a a3; lawevfi ..

Sax.

— ………. …. W” WW 7 .

@3225 ‘V