{"id":217496,"date":"2010-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-18T05:27:46","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T23:57:46","slug":"akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement … on 2 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement … on 2 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar<\/div>\n
                                            1                                WP\/865\/10\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                              O. O. C. J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                          WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n    Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd.                          ...Petitioner.\n                            Vs.\n    The Income Tax Act Settlement Commission,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    Mumbai & Ors.                                             ...Respondents.\n                                    ....\n    Mr.Percy J.Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Atul K.Jasani   for the \n    Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    Mr.B.M.Chatterji with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan   for the Respondents.\n                                    .....\n                                    \n                                    CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND \n                                            J.P.DEVADHAR,  JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                  July 2, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) :\n<\/p>\n
                 Rule,   by   consent     returnable   forthwith.       With   the <\/p>\n
    consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for <\/p>\n
    hearing and final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
                 The issue which arises in these proceedings is whether <\/p>\n
    the Settlement Commission, when it passes an order under Section <\/p>\n
    245D   of   the  Income   Tax   Act,   1961,   can   award   interest   under <\/p>\n
    Section   234B even  though  no  interest   was  chargeable   under  the <\/p>\n
    original   order   of   assessment.     Section   234B(4)   provides,   among <\/p>\n
    other things, that where as a result of an order of the Settlement <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                           2                                 WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    Commission under Section 245D(4) “the amount on which interest <\/p>\n
    was   payable   under   sub-section   (1)   or   sub-section   (3)   has   been <\/p>\n
    increased   or   reduced,   as   the   case   may   be,   the   interest   shall   be <\/p>\n
    increased or reduced accordingly.”   The contention of the assessee <\/p>\n
    is that unless initially, interest was chargeable under the original <\/p>\n
    assessment order, the question of an increase or reduction would <\/p>\n
    not arise and that a prior levy of interest in the original assessment <\/p>\n
    order   is   a   pre-condition   for   the   levy   of   interest   under   Section <\/p>\n
    234B(4).\n<\/p>\n
    2.          The Petitioner is an IATA approved travel agent and is <\/p>\n
    engaged in the business of domestic and international air ticketing.\n<\/p>\n
    The Petitioner also acts as a money changer of foreign exchange.\n<\/p>\n
    The Petitioner has twenty six branches in India and a head office at <\/p>\n
    Mumbai.  For Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2006-07, the Petitioner <\/p>\n
    filed returns of income.   In each of the years, the tax deducted at <\/p>\n
    source was more than the tax payable on the income declared.  The <\/p>\n
    returns of income for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2004-05 were <\/p>\n
    accepted and an intimation  was issued under Section 143(1). For <\/p>\n
    Assessment Year 2003-04,   the case was selected for scrutiny and <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    an   assessment   was   completed   under   Section   143(3).     A   search <\/p>\n
    action   was   conducted   under   Section   132   on   9   November   2005.\n<\/p>\n
    Pursuant   thereto,   notices   were   issued   to   the   Petitioner   under <\/p>\n
    Section 153A, in response to which, the Petitioner filed its returns <\/p>\n
    of income.  On 15 May 2007, notices were issued to the Petitioner <\/p>\n
    under Section 142(1) for the Assessment Years in question.  On 31 <\/p>\n
    May   2007,   the   Petitioner   filed   an   application   to   the   Settlement <\/p>\n
    Commission   under   Section   245C.     On   19   March   2008,   the <\/p>\n
    Settlement   Commission   passed   an   order   under   Section   245D(4) <\/p>\n
    under which the total taxable income for five Assessment Years was <\/p>\n
    determined as follows:<\/p>\n
\n           \n        \n\n\n\n    Sr.No.          Assessment  Returned             Additional       Total \n                    Year        Income               Income           Income\n    1               2002-03            92,03,644 1,77,76,037 2,69,79,681\n\n\n\n\n\n    2               2003-04          2,20,96,220    14,66,628 2,35,63,248\n    3               2004-05          3,09,34,034 1,08,16,326 4,17,50,360\n    4               2005-06          4,79,11,704 103174081 151085785\n    5.              2006-07          3,69,23,334   29,91,158 3,99,14,492\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    3.          The   Settlement   Commission,   on   the   issue   of   interest <\/p>\n
    under Section 234B(4), relied on an earlier order passed by it in <\/p>\n
    the Dolat Group of cases and held that interest would be charged <\/p>\n
    only if interest had been initially charged in the original order of <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    assessment.     Since no interest had been charged in the original <\/p>\n
    order   of   assessment,   the   Settlement   Commission   held   that   no <\/p>\n
    interest under Section 234B could be levied.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          The Commissioner of Income Tax  filed an application for <\/p>\n
    rectification on 14 October 2009 under Section 254.  The case for <\/p>\n
    rectification was that in directing    that interest  under Section 234B <\/p>\n
    should   not   be   charged,   the  Settlement   Commission   had   ignored <\/p>\n
    binding   decisions   of   the  Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  C.I.T.   vs <\/p>\n
    Anjum   Ghaswala,1  and   in  C.I.T.   vs.   Hindustan   Bulk   Carriers.2 <\/p>\n
    Besides, the Gujarat High Court had decided in the case of Sahitya <\/p>\n
    Mudranalaya vs. I.T.Settlement Commission,3 that while passing <\/p>\n
    an order under Section 245D(4), the Commission should direct the <\/p>\n
    payment of interest on that portion of the income which forms part <\/p>\n
    of the total income as determined by the Commission and which <\/p>\n
    was   not  disclosed  earlier  before  the  Assessing  Officer  even  if  no <\/p>\n
    interest   could   have   become   leviable   under   the   original   order   of <\/p>\n
    assessment.     The   power   of   the   Commission   to   rectify   a   mistake <\/p>\n
    apparent   on   the   record   was   invoked   on   the   ground   that   the
\n    1 (2001) 252 ITR 1
\n    2 (2003) 259 ITR 449
\n    3 (2009) 312 ITR 115 (Guj)<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    Commission had ignored binding decisions of the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    and of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          By   an   order   dated   3   February   2010,   the   Settlement <\/p>\n
    Commission   held   that  the   direction   not   to  charge   interest   under <\/p>\n
    Section  234B was a mistake apparent on the record and had to be rectified <\/p>\n
    under Section 254. The Commission held that on 19 March 2008, <\/p>\n
    when it had passed its order, a decision of the Special Bench of the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal   in  Sahitya   Mudranalaya,4  had   taken   the   view   that <\/p>\n
    interest   under   Section   234B   should   be   awarded   when   the <\/p>\n
    Settlement   Commission   passes   an   order   under   Section   235B(4) <\/p>\n
    even if no interest was leviable at the time of the original order of <\/p>\n
    assessment.  The Commission noted that the levy of interest under <\/p>\n
    Section   234B   is   mandatory   under   the   judgment   of   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court   in  Anjum   Ghaswala  (supra)   and   that   in   a   subsequent <\/p>\n
    decision in  Hindustan Bulk Carriers  (supra), the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    has   held   that   both   the   disclosed   income   before   the   Income   Tax <\/p>\n
    Department   and   the   income   disclosed   before   the   Settlement <\/p>\n
    Commission should be clubbed together and the tax and interest <\/p>\n
    4 (1995) 79 Taxman 463 (Bom)<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                           6                                 WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    would be calculated on the aggregate amount.   Moreover, it was <\/p>\n
    held   that   the   Settlement   Commission   has   no   power   to   waive <\/p>\n
    interest.   The Settlement Commission held that since the levy of <\/p>\n
    interest was mandatory,  it had committed an obvious mistake in <\/p>\n
    directing that interest under Section 234B should not be charged <\/p>\n
    and   having   regard   to   the   judgment   of   the   Tribunal   in  Sahitya <\/p>\n
    Mudranalaya  which was directly on the issue when it passed its <\/p>\n
    order,   the   Commission   had   committed   an   error   apparent   by   not <\/p>\n
    charging   interest.     The   order   was   accordingly   rectified   and   the <\/p>\n
    Assessing Officer was directed to levy interest under Section   234B <\/p>\n
    on the total income determined by the order under Section 245D(4) from <\/p>\n
    the first day of April of the relevant Assessment Year until the date <\/p>\n
    of the order under Section 245D(4).\n<\/p>\n
    6.          On   behalf   of   the   assessee,   it   has   been   urged   that   (i) <\/p>\n
    Under Section 254, the power of rectification can be exercised only <\/p>\n
    with a view to rectifying  a mistake apparent from the record.  The <\/p>\n
    finding   of   the   Commission   in   its   original   order   dated   19   March <\/p>\n
    2008, directing the  Assessing Officer not to charge interest under <\/p>\n
    Section 234B(4) was not erroneous and in any event should not be <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                           7                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    considered to be a mistake apparent from the record which could <\/p>\n
    be rectified; (ii) On a plain reading of Section 234B(4)  it is only in <\/p>\n
    a case where, as a result of the order passed by the Commission, <\/p>\n
    the amount of interest payable under Section 234B(1) or Section <\/p>\n
    234B(3) has been increased or reduced,   that interest under the <\/p>\n
    Section can be reduced or increased.   Accordingly, unless interest <\/p>\n
    was initially chargeable under the original order of assessment, a <\/p>\n
    question of increase or reduction would not arise.  Hence, the prior <\/p>\n
    levy   of   interest   in   the   original   order   of   assessment   is   a   pre-\n<\/p>\n
    condition for a levy of additional interest under Section 234B(4);\n<\/p>\n
    (iii) In Anjum Ghaswala, the issue before the Supreme Court was <\/p>\n
    whether the Commission has the power to reduce or waive interest <\/p>\n
    chargeable   under Section 234A, 234B and 234C.   The Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court   held   that   the   levy   of   interest   under   Section   234B   was <\/p>\n
    mandatory and the Commission did not have the power to waive or <\/p>\n
    reduce interest  in an order under Section 245D(4).  This decision <\/p>\n
    is   not   an   authority   for   the   proposition     that   the   Commission   is <\/p>\n
    empowered   to   charge   interest   for   the   first   time   under   Section <\/p>\n
    234B(4) in an order under Section 245D(1) even if it has not been <\/p>\n
    charged in the original order of assessment; (iv) The decision of the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    Supreme   Court   in  Hindustan   Bulk   Carriers    deals   with   the <\/p>\n
    question   of   what   is   the   date   from   which   interest   is   chargeable <\/p>\n
    under   the   Act   and   not   whether   the   Settlement   Commission   has <\/p>\n
    power   to   levy   interest   for   the   first   time   under   Section   245D(4).\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, in  Brij Lal vs. CIT,5   the<\/a> decision in  Anjum Ghaswala <\/p>\n
    has been referred for consideration to a larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n
    7.<\/p>\n
                On the other hand, on behalf of the Revenue, Counsel <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   (i)   The   power   of   the   Settlement   Commission   to <\/p>\n
    award   interest   under   Section   234B(4)   is   not   subject   to   the <\/p>\n
    condition that interest should have been leviable under the original <\/p>\n
    order of assessment; (ii) The observations of the Supreme Court  in <\/p>\n
    Anjum Ghaswala  and  Hindustan  Bulk Carriers  would establish <\/p>\n
    that interest is chargeable under Section 234B(4) for the first time, <\/p>\n
    under   an   order   of   the   Settlement   Commission   under   Section <\/p>\n
    245D(4);  (iii) The Settlement Commission was under Section 254 <\/p>\n
    duty bound  to rectify  a mistake  which  had  occurred,  which   was <\/p>\n
    apparent from the record, since it is a fundamental principle that <\/p>\n
    no party appearing before  the Tribunal,  be  it an assessee  or the <\/p>\n
    5 (2005) 279 ITR 432 (SC)<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by <\/p>\n
    the Tribunal.  In ignoring the binding judgment of the Tribunal in <\/p>\n
    Sahitya   Mudranalaya  (supra),   which   held   the   field   when   the <\/p>\n
    Settlement   Commission   had   passed   an   order   originally   on   19 <\/p>\n
    March   2008,   the   Settlement   Commission   committed   an   error <\/p>\n
    apparent on the record which it could rectify under Section 254.\n<\/p>\n
    8.<\/p>\n
               Sub-sections   (1)   and   (4)   of   Section   234B   are   of <\/p>\n
    particular   relevance   to   the   controversy   which   arises   in   these <\/p>\n
    proceedings.  For aiding the discussion, it would be appropriate to <\/p>\n
    extract in entirety,  the statutory provision :\n<\/p>\n
               “234B. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, <\/p>\n
               where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to
\n               pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such
\n               tax   or,   where   the   advance   tax   paid   by   such   assessee <\/p>\n
               under the  provisions  of  section   210 is less  than ninety
\n               per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee shall be liable to
\n               pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent for every
\n               month or part of a month comprised in the period from
\n               the 1st day of April next following such financial year to <\/p>\n
               the   date   of   determination   of   total   income   under   Sub-<\/p>\n
               section   (1)   of   Section   143   and   where   a   regular
\n               assessment   is   made,   to   the   date   of   such   regular
\n               assessment, on an amount equal to the assessed tax or,
\n               as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance
\n               tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax, <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                              10                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
     Explanation 1, – In this section, “assessed tax” means the
\n     tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) <\/p>\n
     of section 143 and where a regular assessment is made,
\n     the   tax   on   the   total   income   determined   under   such <\/p>\n
     regular assessment as reduced by the amount of, –\n<\/p>\n
        (i) any   tax   deducted   or   collected   at   source   in
\n            accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on <\/p>\n
            any income which is subject to such deduction or
\n            collection   and   which   is   taken   into   account   in
\n            computing such total income;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  any   relief   of   tax   allowed   under   section   90   on
\n            account of tax paid in a country outside India;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)any   relief   of   tax   allowed   under   section   90A   on
\n            account of tax paid in a specified territory outside <\/p>\n
            India referred to in that section;\n<\/p>\n
        (iv)any   deduction,   from   the   Indian   income-tax
\n           payable, allowed under section 91, on account of <\/p>\n
           tax paid in a country outside India; and <\/p>\n
        (v)any tax credit allowed to be set off in accordance
\n           with the provisions of section 115JAA.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation 2.- Where, in relation to an assessment year,
\n     an assessment   is  made  for  the first  time  under section
\n     147   or   section   153A,   the  assessment   so  made   shall   be
\n     regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this
\n     section.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation 3.- In Explanation 1 and in sub-section (3)
\n     “tax on the total income determined under Sub-section
\n     (1)   of   Section   143”   shall   not   include   the   additional
\n     income-tax, if any, payable under section 143.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                11                                 WP\/865\/10\n\n\n     -(2)        Where,   before   the   date   of   determination   of \n<\/pre>\n
     total   income   under   Sub-section   (1)   of   Section   143   or <\/p>\n
     completion   of   a   regular   assessment,   tax   is  paid   by   the
\n     assessee under Section 140A or otherwise.-\n<\/p>\n
        (i) interest shall be calculated in accordance with the
\n            foregoing provisions of this section up to the date
\n            on   which   the   tax  is  so  paid,   and  reduced   by   the <\/p>\n
            interest, if any, paid under section  140A towards
\n            the interest chargeable under this section;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate <\/p>\n
            aforesaid on the amount by which the tax so paid
\n            together   with   the   advance   tax   paid   falls   short   of <\/p>\n
            the assessed tax.\n<\/p>\n
     -(3)        Where, as a result of an order of reassessment <\/p>\n
     or recomputation under section 147 or section 153A, the
\n     amount on which interest was payable under sub-section
\n     (1) is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple
\n     interest a the rate of one per cent for every month or part <\/p>\n
     of a month comprised in the period commencing on the
\n     date following the date of determination of total income <\/p>\n
     under   Sub-section   (1)   of   Section   143     and   where   a
\n     regular   assessment   is   made   as   is   referred   to   in   sub-
\n     section (1) following the date of such regular assessment <\/p>\n
     and   ending   on   the   date   of   the   reassessment   or
\n     recomputation under section 147 or section 153A, on the
\n     amount by which the tax on the total income determined
\n     on   the   basis   of   the   reassessment   or   recomputation
\n     exceeds   the  tax on   the  total  income   determined  under <\/p>\n
     Sub-section   (1)   of   Section   143   or   on   the   basis   of   the
\n     regular assessment aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
     -(4)         Where,   as a result   of an  order  under section
\n     154   or   section   155   or   section   250   or   section   254   or
\n     section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264
\n     or   an   order   of   the   Settlement   Commission   under   Sub-
\n     section   (4)   of   Section   245D,   the   amount   on   which <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          12                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
                interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section
\n                (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, <\/p>\n
                the   interest   shall   be   increased   or   reduced   accordingly,
\n                and –\n<\/p>\n
                   (i) in   a   case   where   the   interest   is   increased,   the
\n                       Assessing   Officer   shall   serve   on   the   assessee   a
\n                       notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying <\/p>\n
                       the sum payable and such notice of demand shall
\n                       be deemed to be a notice  under section  156 and
\n                       the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly;\n<\/p>\n
                   (ii)in a case where the interest is reduced, the excess
\n                       interest paid, if any, shall be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
                -(5)      The   provisions   of   this   section   shall   apply   in
\n                respect   of   assessments   for   the   assessment   year
\n                commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989 and subsequent
\n                assessment years.”\n<\/p>\n
    9.          Section   234B   provides   for   the   payment   of   interest   on <\/p>\n
    default in the payment of   advance tax. The provision is attracted <\/p>\n
    where in any   financial year: (i) An assessee who is liable to pay <\/p>\n
    advance tax has failed to do so; or (ii) Where the advance tax paid <\/p>\n
    by the assessee is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax.  The <\/p>\n
    assessee in such a case is liable to pay interest as specified in the <\/p>\n
    Section from the first day of April next following the financial year <\/p>\n
    to   the   date   of   determination   of   the   total   income   under   Section <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          13                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    143(1) and, where a regular assessment is made, to the date of the <\/p>\n
    regular assessment.  Interest is payable on “an amount equal to the <\/p>\n
    assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the <\/p>\n
    advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax”.  Sub-\n<\/p>\n
    section (4) of Section 234B applies in a situation where, as a result <\/p>\n
    of orders passed under Sections 154, 155, 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 <\/p>\n
    or 264 or an order  of the Settlement Commission  under Section <\/p>\n
    245D(4),   “the amount on which the interest was payable under <\/p>\n
    Sub-sections (1) or (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case <\/p>\n
    may   be.”     Thereupon,   the   provision   is   that   interest   shall   be <\/p>\n
    increased or reduced accordingly.   In a case where the interest is <\/p>\n
    increased,   the   Assessing   Officer   has   to   serve   on   the   assessee   a <\/p>\n
    notice   of   demand   whereas   if   the   interest   is   reduced,   the   excess <\/p>\n
    interest has to be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         In the present case, the issue before the Court arises out <\/p>\n
    of the order of the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) <\/p>\n
    and the question is as to whether the amount on which interest was <\/p>\n
    payable   under   Sub-section   (1)   or   sub-section   (3)   has   been <\/p>\n
    increased or reduced.   Now, in   Sub-section (1) of Section 234B, <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          14                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    interest is payable on an amount equal to the assessed tax (where <\/p>\n
    the assessee who is liable to pay advance tax has failed to pay such <\/p>\n
    tax) or  on the amount by which the advance tax paid falls short of <\/p>\n
    the   assessed   tax.     In   a   situation   where   the   assessee   has   paid <\/p>\n
    advance tax which is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, <\/p>\n
    interest is payable on the difference between the assessed tax  and <\/p>\n
    the advance tax paid.   Sub-section 4 of Section 234(B) refers to a <\/p>\n
    situation where “the amount on which interest was payable under <\/p>\n
    sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced”\n<\/p>\n
    inter  alia   as   a  result   of   an   order   of  the  Settlement   Commission.\n<\/p>\n
    The amount which is referred to in sub-section (4), is the amount <\/p>\n
    on which interest is payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section <\/p>\n
    (3).   That amount is the amount by which the advance tax paid <\/p>\n
    falls short of the assessed tax.     When Sub-section (4) of Section <\/p>\n
    234B refers to “the amount on which interest was payable under <\/p>\n
    Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3)”, that amount is the difference <\/p>\n
    between the advance tax paid and the assessed tax.  The words “on <\/p>\n
    which interest was payable” have     been used in a     descriptive <\/p>\n
    sense  to identify the amount specified in Sub-section (1), or as the <\/p>\n
    case may be, in sub-section (3).  In Sub-section (1), the amount is <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                           15                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    the   difference   between   the   advance   tax   and   the   assessed   tax.\n<\/p>\n
    These   words   do   not   impose   a   condition   that   for   interest   to   be <\/p>\n
    attracted under Section 234B(4) interest should actually have been <\/p>\n
    levied under the original order of assessment   under sub-section <\/p>\n
    (1).   The effect of the order of the Settlement Commission in this <\/p>\n
    case is to enhance the assessed income.   The amount by which the <\/p>\n
    advance tax paid by the assessee falls short of the assessed tax has <\/p>\n
    been increased as a result of the order passed by the Settlement <\/p>\n
    Commission.     This is the amount on which interest was payable <\/p>\n
    under Sub-section (1) for if the assessee were to make a correct <\/p>\n
    disclosure of his income in the first instance, the assessee would <\/p>\n
    have been liable to pay interest under Sub-section (1) on the short <\/p>\n
    fall.     The   words,   “the   interest   shall   be   increased”,   would <\/p>\n
    contemplate both a situation where interest had been levied on  the <\/p>\n
    assessee in the first instance, and a situation where no interest has <\/p>\n
    been   levied   on   the   assessee   in   the   original   order   of   assessment.\n<\/p>\n
    There is no reason or justification for the Court on the basis of the <\/p>\n
    plain   language   used   in   sub-section   (4)   to   exclude   the   latter <\/p>\n
    category of cases as contended on behalf of the assessee from the <\/p>\n
    liability   to   pay   interest.       In   accepting   the   submission   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                           16                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    assessee,   the   Court   would   be   adopting   an   interpretation   which <\/p>\n
    would be contrary both to the language used by the Legislature and <\/p>\n
    the intent that is embodied in Sub-section (4).\n<\/p>\n
    11.         The view which we have taken on the  interpretation of <\/p>\n
    Sub-sections   (1)   and   (4)   of   Section   234B,   as   a   matter   of   first <\/p>\n
    principle,  is also consistent with the interpretation placed by the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court on the provisions of the statute.  In CIT vs. Anjum <\/p>\n
    M.H.Ghaswala<\/a>  (supra),   a   Constitution   Bench   of   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court was considering the question as to whether the Settlement <\/p>\n
    Commission   has   the   jurisdiction   to   reduce   or   waive   interest <\/p>\n
    chargeable under Section 234A, 234B and 234C while passing an <\/p>\n
    order of settlement under Section 245D(4).  The  principle of law <\/p>\n
    which   emerges   from   the  judgment   of  the  Supreme   Court   is that <\/p>\n
    though Section 245D(4) confers a wide power on the  Commission <\/p>\n
    while settling a case, nevertheless the Act mandates that this shall <\/p>\n
    be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  The Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court held that the liability to pay interest under Sections 234A, <\/p>\n
    234B and 234C is mandatory and the Commission would have no <\/p>\n
    power to waive or reduce  interest payable statutorily except to the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          17                                  WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    extent of granting relief under  circulars issued by the Board under <\/p>\n
    Section 119.   In the following observations,  the judgment of the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court indicates that necessary changes in regard to the <\/p>\n
    payment   of   interest   would   have   to   be   made   depending   on   the <\/p>\n
    change   that   has   occurred   upon   the   order   of   the   Settlement <\/p>\n
    Commission under Section 245D(4):\n<\/p>\n
               “A perusal of this sub-section which refers to sub-section
\n               (4)   of   Section   245D   mandates   that   if   by   virtue   of   an <\/p>\n
               order passed under section 245D, the amount of tax on
\n               which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-
\n               section (3) of this section has been increased or reduced, <\/p>\n
               as   the   case   may   be,   the   interest   shall   be   increased   or
\n               reduced accordingly.   This section is an indicator of the
\n               fact   that   so  far   as  the  interest   falling   due  by   virtue   of
\n               default   in   furnishing   a   return   of   income,   default   in <\/p>\n
               payment   of   advance   tax   or   interest   for   deferment   of
\n               advance tax are concerned,  Part F of Chapter XVII has <\/p>\n
               been obligated with the duty of levy of interest, as also to
\n               make the necessary changes in the payment of interest
\n               dependent on the change that may be occur consequent <\/p>\n
               to the order of settlement under section 245D(4).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           If the scheme of levy of interest is thus to be <\/p>\n
               analysed   on   the   anvil   of   the   provisions   referred   to
\n               hereinabove,   it   shows   that   the   interest   contemplated
\n               under   sections   234A,   234B   and   234C   is   mandatory   in
\n               nature and the power of waiver or reduction having not
\n               been expressly conferred on the Commission,  the same
\n               indicates that so far as the payment of statutory interest
\n               is   concerned,   the   same   is   outside   the   purview   of   the
\n               settlement   completed   in   Chapter   XIX-A   of   the   Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                        18                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    The Supreme Court has also held that while providing for the terms <\/p>\n
    of   settlement   under   Sub-section   (6)   of   Section   245D,   the <\/p>\n
    Commission   does   not   have   the   power   to   waive   or   reduce   tax, <\/p>\n
    penalty   or   interest.     In   the   subsequent   judgment   in  CIT   vs. <\/p>\n
    Hindustan   Bulk   Carriers  (supra),   the   issue   before   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court related to the period for which interest was chargeable under <\/p>\n
    Section   234B.     Three   separate   judgments   were   delivered   in   that <\/p>\n
    case.  Mr.Justice Arijit Pasayat while interpreting the provisions of <\/p>\n
    Section 234B observed thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “It   cannot   be   even   countenanced   that   no   interest   is <\/p>\n
               chargeable for that portion of the income forming part of
\n               the total income as determined by the Commission which
\n               was not earlier disclosed before the Assessing Officer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    The   judgment   holds   that   while   the   Commission   has   “sufficient <\/p>\n
    elbow room in assessing the income of the assessee”, the terms of <\/p>\n
    settlement cannot be in conflict with the mandatory provisions of <\/p>\n
    the Act such as quantum and payment of tax and the interest.  The <\/p>\n
    Learned Judge further held as follows :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          19                                  WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
               “There is another way of looking at the issue.   Section
\n               234B(3) provides differently for regular assessment and <\/p>\n
               reassessment.     In   a   reassessment,   ordinarily   income
\n               assessed is more than what was determined originally.  If <\/p>\n
               two   different   periods   are   provided   to   meet   such   a
\n               situation, it is inconceivable that the Legislature intended
\n               to totally give a go by to interest on the income which for
\n               the   first   time   is   disclosed   before   the   Commission.     By <\/p>\n
               analogy and harmony, the period has to be till the date
\n               of the Commission’s order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              To   put   it   differently,   the   interest   charged   in
\n               terms of sections 234A, 234B and 234C becomes payable <\/p>\n
               on   the   income   already   disclosed   in   the   returns   filed,
\n               together   with   the   income   disclosed   before   the <\/p>\n
               Commission.    The concerned interest as aforesaid shall
\n               be   on   the   consolidated   amount   of   income,   i.e.,   both
\n               disclosed   and   undisclosed.     as   indicated   above,   such <\/p>\n
               interest   shall   be   charged   till   the   Commission   acts   in
\n               terms of section 245D.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Concurring judgments were delivered by Mr.Justice M.B.Shah and <\/p>\n
    Mr.Justice   D.M.Dharmadhikari.     In   the   judgment   of   Mr.Justice <\/p>\n
    D.M.Dharmadhikari, it was observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
               “The provisions contained in Chapter XIX-A merely aim
\n               at   encouraging   taxpayers     to   approach   the   Settlement
\n               Commission   with  full   disclosure   of  their   income   which <\/p>\n
               they   had   not   earlier   disclosed   in   the   course   of   regular
\n               assessment.     Such   assessees   who   co-operate   with   the
\n               assessing authorities in making proper assessment of tax
\n               can be granted immunity from prosecution and penalty.
\n               There is no provision that they can be granted immunity
\n               from payment of interest on the tax assessed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                           20                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    It   is   true,   as   contended   by   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
    Assessee,   that   the   issue   which   arose   in  Anjum   Ghaswala  was <\/p>\n
    whether the Settlement Commission while passing an order under <\/p>\n
    Section 245D(4) has the power to waive or reduce interest and the <\/p>\n
    question was answered in the negative.   Similarly, in  Hindustan <\/p>\n
    Bulk Carriers, the specific issue that came up before the Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court was the date from which interest is chargeable under the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The   judgments   of   the   Supreme   Court,   however,   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    distinguished purely on that basis.   In so far as the High Court is <\/p>\n
    concerned,   the   observations   of   the   Supreme   Court   made   while <\/p>\n
    interpreting the provisions of Section 234B are  binding.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         The   fact   that   there   is   a   reference   to   the   Constitution <\/p>\n
    Bench in  Brij Lal Vs.CIT, (supra) on the question as to whether <\/p>\n
    Sections   234A,   234B   and   234C   are   applicable   to   proceedings <\/p>\n
    before   the   Settlement   Commission   and   whether   the   Settlement <\/p>\n
    Commission   can   reopen   concluded   proceedings   by     recourse   to <\/p>\n
    Section 254 so as to levy interest under these Sections though it <\/p>\n
    was not done in the original proceedings, will not detract from the <\/p>\n
    binding force of the judgment in  Anjum Ghaswala  so long as it <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          21                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    continues to hold the field.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in  Sahitya <\/p>\n
    Mudranalaya  (supra)   has   specifically   dealt   with   the   issue   as   to <\/p>\n
    whether interest can be levied under Section 234B in a case where <\/p>\n
    no   interest   was   leviable   under   the   original   order   of   assessment.\n<\/p>\n
    After   adverting   to   the   observations   of   the   Supreme   Court   in <\/p>\n
    Hindustan Bulk Carriers,  the Division Bench observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Therefore, it becomes more than abundantly clear that <\/p>\n
                while passing an order under Section 245D(4) of the Act
\n                the   Commission   exercises   powers   of   an   income-tax
\n                authority as provided under Section 245F of the Act and
\n                the   Commission   cannot   be   precluded   from   fastening <\/p>\n
                liability   to   pay   interest   for   that   portion   of   income
\n                forming part of  the total income  as determined by the <\/p>\n
                Commission which was not earlier disclosed before the
\n                Assessing Officer, even if no interest could have become
\n                leviable   if   originally   disclosed   income   is   considered   in <\/p>\n
                isolation by operation of section 234B(1) of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    14.         In  C.I.T.   Vs.   Kotak   Mahindra   Finance   Ltd.,6  the <\/p>\n
    contention   of   the   assessee   was   that   an   assessment  under <\/p>\n
    Section115J is on   deemed income and hence Sections 234B and <\/p>\n
    234C will not apply.   The contention was that the accounts of a <\/p>\n
    6 (2004) 265 ITR 119<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          22                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    Company under Schedule VI cannot be prepared before the end of <\/p>\n
    the previous year whereas, Section 207 provides for the estimation <\/p>\n
    of   current   income   at   the   end   of   the   previous   year.     Hon’ble <\/p>\n
    Mr.Justice   S.H.Kapadia   (as   the   Learned   Chief   Justice   then   was) <\/p>\n
    rejected   the   argument   and   held   that   the   difficulty   faced   by   the <\/p>\n
    assessee   in   computation   could   not   defeat   the   liability   to   pay <\/p>\n
    advance tax.  The Division Bench of this Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Under section 207 of the Income Tax Act, advance tax is
\n                payable   during   any   financial   year     in   respect   of   the
\n                “current income”.   The words “current income” are very <\/p>\n
                crucial.     The   words   “current   income”   refer   to
\n                computation of total income under the provisions of the
\n                Income-tax   Act   including   section   115J.     Under   section
\n                207 of the Income-tax Act, the words “total income” have <\/p>\n
                been equated to the expression “current income”.    The
\n                matter can be looked at from another angle.  The interest <\/p>\n
                which is leviable under section 234B and section 234C is
\n                compensatory in nature.  It has no element of penalty in
\n                it.   Therefore, it is clear that if there is non-payment or <\/p>\n
                short   payment   of   tax   on   the   current   income,   then   the
\n                assessee has to pay interest as the income has accrued to
\n                the   assessee   for   the   previous   year.     In   our   opinion,
\n                merely   because   the   curtain   rises   in   the   cases   of
\n                companies falling under section 115J after March 31, is <\/p>\n
                no ground for the assessee-company not to pay interest
\n                under section 234B and section 234C.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    15.         Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee   relied on <\/p>\n
    the judgment of the Delhi High Court  in  Modi Cement Ltd. Vs. <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                             23                                  WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    Union   of   India.7  In   that   case,   Section   143(1A(a)   came   up   for <\/p>\n
    consideration under which it had been provided that where, in the <\/p>\n
    case of any person, the total income, as a result of the adjustments <\/p>\n
    made under the first proviso to clause (a) of Sub-section (1) exceeds <\/p>\n
    the total income declared in the return by any amount, the  Assessing Officer <\/p>\n
    shall further increase the amount of tax payable under Sub-section <\/p>\n
    (1)   by   an   additional   income-tax   calculated   as   specified   on   such <\/p>\n
    excess amount.   In the context of the specific words which were <\/p>\n
    used in Section 143(1A)(a), the Delhi High Court held that where, <\/p>\n
    after   the   adjustments   under   Section   143(1)   are   carried   out,   the <\/p>\n
    resultant   figure is still a loss,   Section 143(1A) would not apply <\/p>\n
    since   no   tax   is   payable   if   the   resultant   figure   is   a   loss.     These <\/p>\n
    observations are made in the context of the specific words used in <\/p>\n
    the Section.\n<\/p>\n
    16.          We   have   dealt   with   the  merits   of  the   challenge   to  the <\/p>\n
    order of the Settlement Commission dated 3 February 2010.  But, it <\/p>\n
    must be noted that it was urged on behalf of the Assessee that the <\/p>\n
    Settlement   Commission   ought   not   to   have   exercised   the   power <\/p>\n
    7 (1992) 193 ITR 91<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                          24                                WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    under Section 254 on the ground that the original order, which had <\/p>\n
    followed an earlier view of the Commission in the Dolat Group of <\/p>\n
    cases  could not be said to suffer from an error apparent on the <\/p>\n
    record.  This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason <\/p>\n
    that on the date on which the Settlement Commission declined to <\/p>\n
    order   interest,   namely,   on   19   March   2008,   there   was   a   binding <\/p>\n
    judgment   of   the   Special   Bench   of   the   Tribunal   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
    Sahitya Mudranalaya vs. CIT.8   As a matter of fact, the judgment <\/p>\n
    of the Gujarat High Court confirming the judgment of the Tribunal <\/p>\n
    noted earlier was delivered on 3 March 2008 which was also prior <\/p>\n
    to   the   original   order   of   the   Settlement   Commission.     The <\/p>\n
    Settlement Commission, therefore, committed an error apparent by <\/p>\n
    not   following   the   decision   of   the   Special   Bench   of   the   Tribunal <\/p>\n
    which was confirmed by the Gujarat High Court.  These judgments, <\/p>\n
    as we have noted earlier,  were also consistent with the law laid <\/p>\n
    down by the Supreme Court in  Anjum Ghaswala  and  Hindustan <\/p>\n
    Bulk   Carriers.     The   Settlement   Commission   was,   therefore, <\/p>\n
    justified in allowing the Miscellaneous Application   under Section <\/p>\n
    154   and   setting   right   the   error   apparent   which   occurred   in   the <\/p>\n
    8 (1995) 79 Taxman 463<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                      25                              WP\/865\/10<\/p>\n
    original order.  In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT,9   the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court<\/a> has emphasized that the basic purpose underlying <\/p>\n
    Section 254 is based on the fundamental principle that no party <\/p>\n
    appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, <\/p>\n
    should   suffer   on   account   of   any   mistake   committed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal.   In the circumstances, the Settlement Commission, was <\/p>\n
    therefore, justified in exercising the power under Section 254 and <\/p>\n
    in allowing the miscellaneous application.\n<\/p>\n
    17.        For  these reasons,  we  are of the view that there  is no <\/p>\n
    merit in the Writ Petition.  The Petition shall stand dismissed.  No <\/p>\n
    order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)<\/p>\n
                                              ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)<\/p>\n
    9 (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC)<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:05:02 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement … on 2 July, 2010 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar 1 WP\/865\/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.865 OF 2010 Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner. Vs. The Income […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAkbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement ... on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement ... on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T23:57:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement … on 2 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T23:57:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5207,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement ... on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T23:57:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement … on 2 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement ... on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement ... on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T23:57:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement … on 2 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T23:57:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010"},"wordCount":5207,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010","name":"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement ... on 2 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T23:57:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akbar-travels-of-india-pvt-ltd-vs-the-income-tax-act-settlement-on-2-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Akbar Travels Of India Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Act Settlement … on 2 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}