BHAGIRATHI ENTERPRISE,VILE PARLE WEST MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1)(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

ITA 3130/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 June 2025AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)23 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the surcharge should be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax'. For the AY 2021-22, this rate is 10% as the total income falls within a specific slab.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an Association of Persons (AOP), filed its return of income. The CPC processed the return and levied a surcharge of 37% on the tax payable, whereas the assessee had computed it at 10%. The CIT(A) upheld the CPC's action.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the correct rate of surcharge applicable to an AOP taxed at the maximum marginal rate, and whether it should be the highest slab rate of 37% or a rate based on the income slab.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 167B,Section 2(29C),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “B” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

PER BENCH :

These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the order(s) of the Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Hyderabad [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs.) 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. Since the facts and issues involved in all these appeals are common and identical, except for the amounts mentioned therein, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed-off by way of this common order.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 123 days in filing these appeals as pointed out by the Registry. It was also noticed that the the medical

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 167B

All 178 judgments and leading authorities on Section 167B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →