Commissioner of Income Tax vs GUJARAT STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

M.S. Shah, J.

We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, learned standing counsel for the revenue, and Mr. Manish J. Shah, for Mr. J. P. Shah learned counsel for the assessee.

In this reference, two questions are referred at the instance of the revenue and one question is referred at the instance of the assessee.

The first question referred at the instance of the revenue is in respect of assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. The question is as under :

"Whether the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 244(1A) in respect of interest payments under sections 215, 217, and 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"

Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the controversy raised herein is concluded in. favour of the assessee as per the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., , Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Sardar Balwant Singh Gujral (1990) 86 CTR (MP) 64 and Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ambat Echukutty Menon, .

Having perused the aforesaid decisions, we find no reason not to agree with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

The second question referred at the instance of the revenue in respect of assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 is as under :

"Whether the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 214 on advance tax payments?"

The learned counsel for the parties agree that the question is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Modi Industries Limited, Modinagar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Another, in favour of the assessee.

In view of the above decision, we answer this question in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

The last question in this reference is at the instance of the assessee and is for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The question is as under :

"Whether the assessee is entitled for interest u/s 244(1A)/214 on payment of tax made u/s 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"

The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the controversy raised herein is concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT (supra) as explained by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hansa Agencies Pvt. Ltd., and by the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. N.G.E.F. Limited, .

We find no reason to take a different view. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

The Reference stands disposed of accordingly.