CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

Chandramohan Manohar Potdar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodchandramohan Manohar Potdar Acit-21(3) 145/17, Pansare Building, Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan – Aabpp0701G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…rther assailed the levy of interest under Sec. 234A and 234B of the Act before us. As the levy of interest under the aforesaid statutory provisions is mandatory as per the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), therefore, finding no infirmity in charging of the aforesaid interest by the A.O, we uphold the same. Ground of appeal No. 6 is dismissed. 12. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2020 (M. Balaganesh) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/02/2020 Rohit, P.S. Copy of the Order forw…

Income Tax Officer-23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securities Trust 2008 Series 14, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

…e to the charge of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 (SC) and we therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 14. Ground No. IX, being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon and the same is dismissed as infructu…

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

…Ground of appeal No. 5(c) is allowed. 28. The assessee has assailed the levy of interest u/sss. 234A, 234B and 234C. As the levy of interest is mandatory as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum M.H Ghaswala & Ors.(2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), therefore, the A.O is directed to give work out the same after giving effect to our order. The Ground of appeal No. 8 is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations. 29. The Ground of appeal No. 9 being general is dismissed as not pressed. 30. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observ…

India Medtronic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodindia Medtronics Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Of Income-Tax-10(1)(1), Bldg. No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri Room No. 209, Vs. Ghatkopar Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra- 400093 Pan – Aaaci4227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri Rajan R. Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2019

…e levy of interest under Sec. 234B of the Act. In our considered view, the levy of interest under Sec. 234B is mandatory in nature. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghasawala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC). However, as the aforesaid levy of interest under Sec.234B would be consequential to the adjudication of the merits of the issue under consideration, therefore, the A.O is directed to work out the same on the basis of the tax liability worked out in the hands of the assessee. The Ground of appeal No. 63 raised by the assessee is disposed off i…