DR SARITA MILIND DAVARE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2185/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2016AY 2007-082 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee's authorized representative submitted that they did not wish to press the appeal. The departmental representative raised no objection.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2007-08. The appeal concerned the computation of interest under Section 234, specifically the date from which credit for taxes should be given.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct date for crediting taxes for the purpose of calculating interest under Section 234, in relation to the date of search and seizure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kothari
Hearing: 29/09/2016Pronounced: 29/09/2016

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 27/12/2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-38 Mumbai for the Asst. Year 2007-08, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order dated 23/12/2011 passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Aggrieved, the assessee has challenged the impugned order on the following ground of appeal:-

“The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in computing the interest u/s 234 wrongly giving a credit of taxes as of 9th March 2011 as against 12th January, 2010 i.e. the date of search u/s 132, when the cash was seized.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee does not want to press the present appeal.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection.

More judgments on Section 234

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →