L'OREAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CIR 2(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Assessing Officer, in effectuating the CIT(A)'s orders, reduced the demands to NIL. Consequently, the assessee conceded that no grievance remained.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against orders treating it in default and liable for interest under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's pleas but remanded the matters for verification.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeals survive when the Assessing Officer has given effect to the CIT(A)'s orders, resulting in NIL demands.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI JOGINDER SINGH
PER G.S. PANNU, AM :
The captioned are two appeals preferred by the assessee against two orders of CIT(A) dated 17.12.2013 and 24.12.2013, which in turn arose from respective demand notices/orders dated 21.2.2011 and 1.7.2011 passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) respectively by the Assessing Officer treating the assessee in default and liable for interest u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for Rs. 44,11,460/- and Rs. 42,97,687/- respectively.
2 M/s. L‟Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. & 2257/Mum/2014
At the time of hearing, the singular plea of the assessee was that though the CIT(A) accepted the pleas of the assessee, relief has not been allowed straightaway and the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
In response, the learned CIT-DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue put forth a report from the Assessing Officer enclosing order giving effect to the respective orders of the CIT(A), whereby the demands raised have been reduced to NIL. In this context, the learned CIT-DR has furnished copies of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer dated 4.2.2016, which are placed on record.
In view of the aforesaid, the learned representative for the assessee fairly conceded that no grievance of the assessee survives for the present. As a consequence, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous, as the necessary relief has been allowed by the Assessing Officer vide his orders dated 4.2.2016 giving effect to the orders of the CIT(A).
Above decision was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of the hearing in the presence of both the parties on 11.02.2016.
More judgments on Section 201(1)
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tmw Fintech Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 14(1)(2), MumbaiITA 30/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- State Bank of India, Guna vs Income Tax Officer, TDS, GwaliorITA 432/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- State Bank of India Regional Business… vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Gwalior, GwaliorITA 420/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- State Bank of India, Tikamgarh vs Income Tax Officer, TDS ITO (TDS) Gwalior…ITA 411/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026