The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii, Pune v. Patni Computer Systems Limited
High Court
11 Jan 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii, Pune v. Patni Computer Systems Limited
Date of order
11 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ii, Pune v. Patni Computer Systems Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in computing the assessee's interest liability under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the tax credit in respect of the taxes paid abroad has to be taken into consideration.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4278 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax - II, Pune
Versus
Patni Computer Systems Limited
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.S.N. Inamdar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 11[th] January, 2011.
1.The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in computing the assessee's interest liability under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the tax credit in respect of the taxes paid abroad has to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the law has been amended to that effect by substituting Explanation (1) to Section 234B by Finance Act, 2006. Since the law has been amended with a view to remove the hardship caused to the assessees, the Tribunal held that the amendment to be clarificatory and would apply retrospectively.
2.In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue