2014 (7) TMI 505 - ITAT DELHI
Sood Brij & Associates Versus ACIT, Circle-37(1), New Delhi
Validity of reassessment u/s 147/148 of the Act – Held that:- The decision in ACIT, Circle 37(1), New Delhi Versus Sood Brij & Associates [2014 (7) TMI 496 - ITAT DELHI] followed - the reasons were recorded on 30th March, 2010 and on the same date no ......
2014 (7) TMI 466 - ITAT MUMBAI
Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT Central Circle-31, Mumbai
Interest expenditure – Held that:- The decision in Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 2 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Hitesh S. Mehta Versus DCIT Central Circle- 23, Mumbai [2013 (10) TMI 1065 - ITAT MUMBAI] - books of accounts produced by the assessee d ......
2013 (8) TMI 668 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Mali Florex Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
Rectification of mistake - Tribunal directed AO to recalculate interest u/s 234A, 234B and adjustment of seized amount with advance tax - A.O. failed to follow direction - Held that:- There is no mistake in the said order of the Tribunal, warranting ......
2013 (5) TMI 560 - ITAT PUNE
Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra Urmil Versus DCIT Central Circle-I, Nashik
Income from undisclosed sources – Appeal is related to two assessment years - AO made additions in income sustained by Ld. CIT(A) - Addition in income made u/s 153A of the Act - Held that:- Assessee in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) has offered ......
2013 (4) TMI 144 - Bombay High Court
Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Kotak Securities Ltd. (No. 2)
Remitting the matter back to the file of the A.O - Depreciation U/s 32 on Intangible Assets - Interest U/s 234C - Bad debt - Held that:- The Tribunal, as noted above, has considered it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer on ......
2011 (4) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Agra Versus M/s Hind Lamps Ltd., Shikohabad
Interest u/s 234B and 234C - unpaid bonus - it was submitted by the assessee, that the provision was made by the assessee company in its books of account for bonus payable to the employees and the said amount was deductible on payment thereof to the ......
2008 (4) TMI 370 - ITAT LUCKNOW-B
Income-Tax Officer. Versus Dr. Sameer Kant Agarwal.
........... iscretion is provided to the AO to waive the interest under these sections, then non-charging of interest would become a mistake apparent from the record and the AO is duty-bound to charge the same through rectification under s. 154. 13. So far as effect of the decision of Hon ble apex Court in Insilco Ltd. s case is concerned, it only refers the question back to the High Court for considering whether the law laid down in Ranchi Club Ltd. s case has been changed by virtue of the decision of Constitutional Bench in CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala s case. It does not lay down any law as to whether levy of interest through demand notice would become null and void if not so charged through assessment order. Since levy of interest is mandatory, we set aside the appellate order and restore the matter to the file of AO to appropriately modify the assessment order for charging mandatory levy. 14. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed but for statistical purposes.
2007 (3) TMI 161 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SMT. AE SAROJINI
Assessment – Question raised that whether the assessee is entitled for the capital gain exemption u/s 54F for extension of house – Held that exemption can’t be denied by order u/s 143(1)(a) ......
2007 (1) TMI 137 - BOMBAY High Court
Motilal M. Gupta Versus Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax And Others
........... t no cash was seized during the search. Under the Board circular what is to be seen is whether the assessee was incapacitated for making payment of tax immediately after the search and seizure action. In the present case admittedly, the entire stock belonging to the petitioner was seized during the course of search and seizure operation and they were not released. In these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners that on account of seizure of the entire stock, he was not in a position to pay the taxes ought not to have been disbelieved. For all the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 119(2)(a) of the Act on March 20, 2006 and remit the matter back to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. The writ petition stands disposed of.
2006 (11) TMI 132 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus P. HI SEEDS INDIA LTD
Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) – ‘erroneous claim for deduction’ can’t be equated to ‘concealment of income’ - Since all the transactions had been mentioned by the Assessee in its Return, there is no concealment of income - Section 271(1)(c) is attracted on ......
2005 (12) TMI 88 - KERALA High Court
Seapearl Enterprises Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax.
........... sions was also with reference to assessed income. Above all, if there is any justifying circumstance for non-filing or belated filing of return or for non-payment or short-payment of advance tax, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax is vested with powers under the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to waive interest under section 234A and section 234B of the Act. Therefore, I do not find the retrospective effect of the amendment is any way arbitrary or oppressive as the levy is not absolute and is subject to cancellation or reduction by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax based on waiver applications which the petitioners or any assessee can file. I am also in agreement with the decision above referred to of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the Division Bench held that the amendment is calculated to clarify the ambiguity that was felt in the original provisions. In the circumstances, the original petitions are devoid of any merit and are dismissed.
2005 (5) TMI 547 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Kalyan, Mumbai Versus Prabhu K. Chandnani
Interest chargeable, Rectification of mistake ......
........... has waived the interest. (3)The Assessing Officer is competent to rectify the omission with an order under section 154 to charge interest if he has already not charged or incorrectly charged or not correctly specified in the assessment order or DN. (4)The CIT(A) has co-terminus power with Assessing Officer and if he admits appeal on the question of chargeability of interest, he too can correct the error crept in the order of Assessing Officer in respect of chargeability of these interests, if otherwise the default is proved. Therefore, we set aside the case to the file of CIT(A) for verifying the facts about defaults of the nature as mentioned in sections 234A, 234B and 234C and rectifying the error crept in the assessment order by not correctly charging the interest. He will quantify the interest chargeable under these sections and direct the Assessing Officer, accordingly, to recover the same. 40. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
2002 (3) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court
Raj Kumar Singal Versus Union of India And Others.
........... the original provision interest was leviable on the income as declared in the return filed by the assessee. By the amended provision, the interest is leviable on the income as determined by the assessing authority minus the income on which the tax has been paid or deducted. The amendment is only calculated to clarify the ambiguity that was felt in the original provision. It is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Mr. Sandhu contends that the provision having been enforced retrospectively, it violates article 20(1) of the Constitution. The impugned amendment provides for conviction for violation of a law which was not in force at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. However, on consideration of the matter, we find that it does not provide for any penalty. It only regulates the levy of interest. Thus, no violation of article 20 is involved. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine.
2002 (1) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court
Ashoka Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others
........... s per the normal computation under the Act led to a negative figure and still the assessee was made liable to pay tax on the basis of computation of income under section 115J of the Act. It was under these circumstances that levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C had been cancelled. Further, this judgment is no authority for cancellation of interest under section 234A which is leviable on account of delay in filing of return. The decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. 1996 217 ITR 72 is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the dispute was whether penal interest under sections 234A and 234B was leviable on the returned income or on the assessed income. There is no such dispute in the present case. The returned income in the present case is the same as has been determined as taxable income as per the intimation dated September 13, 1999. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
2001 (12) TMI 68 - DELHI High Court
Dr. Prannoy Roy And Another Versus Commissioner of Income Tax And Another.
........... 2856 2001 8 SCC 607 in the following words We are informed that several High Courts, overlooking the said ban, are granting stay of proceedings involving offences under the Act pending before courts of Special Judges. This might be on account of a possible chance of missing the legislative ban contained in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act because the title to section 19 is Previous sanction necessary for prosecution . It would have been more advisable if the prohibition contained in sub-section (3) had been included in a separate section by providing a separate distinct title. Be that as it may, that is no ground for bypassing the legislative prohibition contained in the sub-section. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest would be payable in a case, where tax has not been deposited prior to the due date of filing of the income tax return. This writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove, but there shall be no order as to costs.