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 during the assessment proceedings has been held to be unreliable - rejection/ reliability of the books of accounts and the proposed adjudication of the CIT(A) in view of the direction may have direct impact on the issue of the liability the matter is liable to be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - Levy of ....... - .......
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 notice u/s 148 was issued - The reason were supplied to the assessee - the re-assessment proceedings cannot be held to be bad in law - the notice was served on the assessee - the reasons recorded by the respondent were supplied to the assessee - the contention of the assessee is assessee cannot be accepted that reassessment was bad in absence of reas ....... - .......
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 any rectification, as the Tribunal made it amply clear and gave direction that seized amount has to be adjusted first towards existing liabilities and thereafter it should be adjusted towards the outstanding tax liability of the assessment years under consideration, and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest under S. ....... - .......
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 the amount of Rs. 4,21,000/- as his income from undisclosed sources. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee in his letter addressed to the AO has accepted for the addition to be made in his hands. Under these circumstances and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) ....... - .......
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 the ground that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has considered as to whether there was a default on the part of the assessee in the payment of advance tax. - Since the Tribunal has merely restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal as giving rise t ....... - .......
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 employees on or before 30th November, 1996, being the due date for filing of the Income-tax return. The assessee could not have anticipated that the said amount of bonus shall remain unpaid upto 30th November, 1996 and it was only because of the refusal of the ....... - .......
2008 (4) TMI 370 - ITAT LUCKNOW-B
Income-Tax Officer. Versus Dr. Sameer Kant Agarwal.
....... - ...... haswala 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
....... - ...... believed. 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 only in those instances where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of his income, ....... - .......
2005 (12) TMI 88 - KERALA High Court
Seapearl Enterprises Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax.
....... - ...... tion 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
....... - ...... e, 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.
....... - ...... mpugned 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
....... - ...... able 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.
....... - ...... ded 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.