DARIUS CAVASJI SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4731/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 November 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Part III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act, 2020, specifically section 2(9), is applicable for AY 2021-22. Clause (e) of the surcharge provisions applies to the assessee's case, mandating a surcharge rate of 15%.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring total income and claimed TDS credit. The CPC processed the return and raised a demand by applying a surcharge rate of 25% instead of 15%. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who upheld the CPC's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the surcharge rate of 25% applied by the CPC and upheld by CIT(A) is correct, or if the surcharge rate should be 15% as per the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 2020 for AY 2021-22.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 111A,Section 112,Section 112A,Section 115BAC,Section 172,Section 174,Section 174A,Section 175,Section 176,Section 192

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain
For Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana
Hearing: 06.11.2024Pronounced: 29.11.2024

PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 29.07.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in upholding the levy of surcharge at 25% as computed by

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 111A

All 279 judgments and leading authorities on Section 111A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →