2016 (2) TMI 274 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sri Suresh Sharma Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Interest under Section 234A determined before taking notice of self assessment payment under Section 140A - Held that - In the absence of any statutory provision made for reducing such amount paid towards self assessment tax, the Authorities proceeded to levy interest on the entire amount de hors the payment of ₹ 40 lakhs made by the Assessee towards the self assessment tax before the due date of filing of return of income. A similar questi.....
2016 (2) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Premier Distilleries P. Ltd Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax And The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Penalty imposed u/s 221 (1) - self assessment tax under Section 140A remained payable - denial of natural justice - Held that - Considering the assessee s submission that the 1st respondent is erred in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 221(1) without considering sufficient cause shown for the belated payment of self assessment tax under Section 140A for the assessment year in question and without assigning proper reasons and that the 1.....
2015 (9) TMI 608 - ITAT MUMBAI
Raymond Limited Versus Dy. CIT-293) , Mumbai
Exigibility to interest u/s.244A - refund of tax to the assessee for the relevant year - Held that - The Apex Court per its larger bench decisions in Modi Industries Ltd. (1995 (9) TMI 324 - SUPREME Court) and Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (2013 (10) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT) settled that there is no right to get interest of refund except as provided by the statute. The proposition of the interest being exigible on any amount paid, irrespective of eith.....
2015 (9) TMI 1344 - ITAT MUMBAI
C.C. Chokshi & Co. Versus The ACIT, Range 11 (2) , Mumbai
Addition on un-reconciled professional receipts on the basis of difference between the information gathered from the Annual Information Report(AIR) and professional receipts declared as per books of account - Held that - We set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition on the ground that the differences between the information gathered from AIR and the professional receipts as per books of account is no.....
2015 (12) TMI 345 - ITAT MUMBAI
Mrs. Jayamala Sutrave Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-24 and 26, Mumbai
Validity of search conduced in the hands of the assessee under section 132 - Held that - We notice that the only reason on which the assessee is questioning the validity of search is that the search action has not resulted in unearthing of any incriminating material or undisclosed income. Validity of search could not be questioned on the above said ground. It is not necessary that the search action should always result in unearthing of any incrim.....
2015 (10) TMI 1466 - ITAT CHENNAI
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle Tambaram.
Credit for foreign tax paid in Mauritius - whether should not be excluded while computing interest under section 234C? - whether the payment made by the assessee on 10.09.2004 in Mauritius can be considered as advance tax as was done by the assessee or can it be a self-assessment tax as was considered by the Assessing Officer? - Held that - The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has considered the submissions of the assessee and the averments o.....
2015 (12) TMI 969 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Rajaratna Mills Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore
Entitlement to interest under section 244A paid by them under section 140A - Held that - The entitlement of a person to interest on the refund arises out of substantive part of sub-section (1) of section 244A. Clauses (a) and (b) relate only to the method of computation. The method of computation dealt with by clause (a) relates to specific cases of refund under certain provisions. Therefore, the starting point for calculation of the interest is .....
2015 (8) TMI 876 - ITAT KOLKATA
D.C.I.T,C.C XIII, Kolkata Versus M/s. Janki Textile & Industries Ltd and M/s. Umang Vincom Pvt. Ltd
Explanation to section 73 - whether the main source of income of the assessee company was share trading and not income from other sources? - CIT(A) held that by virtue of main source of income of the assessee being Income from other sources explanation to section 73 was not applicable - Held that - In the present case, the AO has considered the income of ₹ 30 crores, disclosed u/s. 132(4) by the assessee as income from other sources because.....
2015 (8) TMI 603 - ITAT HYDERABAD
M/s. Konar Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. and Others Versus Dy. Commissioner of I.T., Central Circle 8, Hyderabad
Penalty under section 221(1) read with section 140A(3) - assessee companies had not paid either any advance tax or even self assessment tax before filing their returns of income nor even after issue of intimations under section 143(1) resulting into raising of demand - Held that - Similar penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in the cases of other group companies 2014 (12) TMI 431 - ITAT HYDERABAD involvin.....
2015 (8) TMI 1023 - ITAT PUNE
ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Versus Shri Chandak Krishnagopal Motilal
Penalty u/s.140A(3) r.w.s. 221 - assessee failed to pay self-assessment tax - CIT(A) deleted the addition admitting additional evidences - Held that - In the instant case it is an undisputed fact that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer despite repeated opportunities given by him. This act of assessee by ignoring the Assessing Officer is highly deplorable. However, considering the mishaps in the family caused due to the death.....
2015 (6) TMI 322 - ITAT DELHI
ACIT Versus Rakesh Kumar Garg
Penalty u/s 140A(3) - non payment of self assessment tax which was shown as payable in the return of income filed - CIT(A) deleted the penalty levy - Held that - No penalty notice was issued to the assessee u/s 221 of the Act and the penalty order was also not passed u/s 221 of the Act and there is no penalty provision u/s 140A of the Act and the AO misunderstood the relevant provision of the Act while issuing notice and imposing penalty against .....
2015 (6) TMI 217 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. Nagesh Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Refund the excess amount paid with interest - Held that - The declaration of income furnished by the assessee under the revised return is declared to be invalid. In such circumstances, the provisions of self-assessment under Section 140-A of the Act, are not attracted. If the Assessing Officer is barred from framing a fresh assessment based on any invalid return, non-est in the eye of law, though is chargeable under Section 4 of the Act, Departme.....
2015 (10) TMI 1411 - ITAT MUMBAI
DCIT - 10 (2) Mumbai Versus M/s. Aanjaneya Life Care Ltd.
Penalty under section 221(1) - delay in making payment of self-assessment tax - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) observed that the assessee was having meagre cash and current balances and the assessee was in financial constraints during the year under consideration thus cancelled penalty - Held that - Though several grounds were raised before us, the learned Departmental representative was unable to point out as to whether the assessee had su.....
2015 (3) TMI 110 - DELHI HIGH COURT
CIT Versus Engineers India Ltd.
Entitlement to interest under Section 244A on refund - excess self-assessment tax paid under Section 140A - Held that - There cannot be a general rule that whenever a refund of income tax paid in excess is to be made, the Revenue must necessarily pay interest on the refunded amount. The letter and spirit of the law on the subject is that the party which committed the error in proper calculation (or delay in proper assessment) must bear the burden.....
2015 (2) TMI 409 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M/s Kudos Chemie Limited, Chandigarh Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another
Reduction of penalty levied under section 140A(3) - Tribunal restored the assessee's exigibility to penalty, but while doing so, has reduced the quantum of penalty to ₹ 10 lacs for each financial year - Held that - Tribunal reduced the quantum of penalty to ₹ 10 lacs for each financial year without assigning any reason other than holding that the ends of justice and a liberal interpretation require that the penalty be reduced. The.....