What is CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala authority for?

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala?

452 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1), spanning 2002 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 250, Section 234A, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1)

Tecnotree Convergence Lt D, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1520/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

…f liable to be charged interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC). We, therefore, uphold the AO’s action in charging the aforesaid interest. We, however, direct the AO to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234D of the Act while giving effect to this order. 12. Ground No.8 12.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w…

Tecnotree Convergence Lt D, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1519/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

…f liable to be charged interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC). We, therefore, uphold the AO’s action in charging the aforesaid interest. We, however, direct the AO to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234D of the Act while giving effect to this order. 12. Ground No.8 12.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Tecnotree Convergence Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

…f liable to be charged interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC). We, therefore, uphold the AO’s action in charging the aforesaid interest. We, however, direct the AO to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234D of the Act while giving effect to this order. 12. Ground No.8 12.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Tecnotree Convergence Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

…f liable to be charged interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This proposition was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC). We, therefore, uphold the AO’s action in charging the aforesaid interest. We, however, direct the AO to re-compute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234D of the Act while giving effect to this order. 12. Ground No.8 12.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w…

ACIT vs. M/S Vsl Mining Co. P. Ltd

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 204/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…liable to be charged interest u/s 234A, 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 I, therefore, uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 7. Additional Grounds 1 and 2 – raised vide letter dated 25.03.2019…

V.S.L. Mining Company Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 1854/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…liable to be charged interest u/s 234A, 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 I, therefore, uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 7. Additional Grounds 1 and 2 – raised vide letter dated 25.03.2019…

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…TR 913 (SC) Ellerman Linces Ltd. vs. C1T ii) 237 ITR 889 (SC) CIT vs. UCO Bank Ltd. iii) 247 ITR 128 (SC)Taper Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of iv) Central Excise 131 ITR 597 (SC) K. P. Varghese vs. ITO v) 183 ITR 1 (SC) Keshavji Ravji and Co. vs. CIT vi) 252 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala vii) It would be evident from the aforesaid instruction that surrender 8.5 by itself cannot be made a basis to make addition more particularly when in the instant case, the reason for surrender has also been stated i.e. inability at the time of search to furnish documents vis- a-vis creditworthiness and genuinenes…

M/S Deepak Cales Inda Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 1286/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 36Section 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 1285 /Bang/2016 M/s. Deepak Cables India Ltd., The Additional Commissioner 2011-12 #07, N S Iyengar Street, of Income-Tax, Seshadripuram, Range – 11, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. PAN : AACCD 6466 C 1286/Bang/2016 The Deputy Commissioner of 2012-13 -do- Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore. Assessee by : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA Revenue by : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 21.03.2019 Date o…

M/S Deepak Cales Inda Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 1285/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234Section 36Section 41

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. and APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year 1285 /Bang/2016 M/s. Deepak Cables India Ltd., The Additional Commissioner 2011-12 #07, N S Iyengar Street, of Income-Tax, Seshadripuram, Range – 11, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. PAN : AACCD 6466 C 1286/Bang/2016 The Deputy Commissioner of 2012-13 -do- Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore. Assessee by : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA Revenue by : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 21.03.2019 Date o…

Sri. Shambulal G Chhabra vs. Addl.C.I.T

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 1145/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…imself liable to be charged interest u/s 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 assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to Page 4 of 9 re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 6. Ground No.3 (3.1 to 3.4) – Disallowance of interest of Rs.48,6…

Shri Ashish B Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(1)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 329/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 329/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Ashish B. Sanghvi The Income Tax Officer, B-39, C-1, Mahavir Nagar, Ward 33(1)-1, Shankar Lane, Kandivali The Pratykshkar Bhavan, Vs. (West) 705, C-12, Bkc, Bandra Mumbai-400 067 (E), Mumbai-400 051 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Avkps0725R अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Chhag, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DR

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 292B

…officer must be performed strictly in the manner as have been prescribed and if it has not been done in the manner as prescribed under the law, then it becomes nullity in the eyes of law. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [20011 252 ITR 1/119 Taxman 352 observed that it is a normal rule of construction that when a statue vests certain powers in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then that authority is bound to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statue only. 3.39. Hon'ble Bombay High Court dealt with a similar situation hi the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabr…

Sri B S Byregowda (HUF), Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

ITA 177/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. B. S. Byregowda (Huf), Vs. The Income-Tax Officer Borehalli, Gankallu Post, Ward-1, Ramanagar – 562 109. Ramanagar. Pan : Aaihb 5884 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. Sudheendra, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. B. S. Byregowda (HUF), Vs. The Income-Tax Officer Borehalli, Gankallu Post, Ward-1, Ramanagar – 562 109. Ramanagar. PAN : AAIHB 5884 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. B. Sudheendra, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT Date of hearing : 12.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2019 O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-3, Bangalore, dated 01.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the c…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 819/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…of the Act, as the case may be for the relevant Assessment Years. 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 aforesaid interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order for the concerned Assessment Year. 7. Ground No. 2 - Unexplained Investment in properties (Assessee’s appea…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 818/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…of the Act, as the case may be for the relevant Assessment Years. 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 aforesaid interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order for the concerned Assessment Year. 7. Ground No. 2 - Unexplained Investment in properties (Assessee’s appea…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 776/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…of the Act, as the case may be for the relevant Assessment Years. 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 aforesaid interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order for the concerned Assessment Year. 7. Ground No. 2 - Unexplained Investment in properties (Assessee’s appea…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 774/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…of the Act, as the case may be for the relevant Assessment Years. 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 aforesaid interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order for the concerned Assessment Year. 7. Ground No. 2 - Unexplained Investment in properties (Assessee’s appea…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 773/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…of the Act, as the case may be for the relevant Assessment Years. 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 aforesaid interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order for the concerned Assessment Year. 7. Ground No. 2 - Unexplained Investment in properties (Assessee’s appea…

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 772/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

…of the Act, as the case may be for the relevant Assessment Years. 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 aforesaid interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order for the concerned Assessment Year. 7. Ground No. 2 - Unexplained Investment in properties (Assessee’s appea…

M/S Shrimad Rajchandra Gyan Mandir Trust, Hubli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Hubli

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

ITA 39/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shrimad Rajchandra Gyan Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Mandir Trust, Income-Tax, Beside Sbi, Zonal Office, Circle-3(1), Kusagal Road, Keswapur, Hubli. Hubballi – 580 023. Pan : Aacts 4573 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sowmya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234B

…e denies itself liable to be charged interest u/s 234B 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 I, therefore, uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234B of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 6. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 – Carry forward of loss/deficit for set off against income of assessee 6.1…

M/S the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 187/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.187/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…denies himself liable to be charged interest u/s 234B 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 I, therefore, uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest u/s 234B of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed. Order pr…

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

What is CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

Tecnotree Convergence Lt D, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Tecnotree Convergence Lt D, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Tecnotree Convergence Ltd, Gurgaon

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Tecnotree Convergence Ltd, Gurgaon

ACIT vs. M/S Vsl Mining Co. P. Ltd

V.S.L. Mining Company Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

M/S Deepak Cales Inda Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

M/S Deepak Cales Inda Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

Sri. Shambulal G Chhabra vs. Addl.C.I.T

Shri Ashish B Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(1)-1, Mumbai

Sri B S Byregowda (HUF), Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagar

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

DCIT, Mangalore vs. M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Ltd, Mangalore

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

M/S Delta Infralogistics Worldwide Limited, Mangalore vs. ACIT, Mangalore

M/S Shrimad Rajchandra Gyan Mandir Trust, Hubli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Hubli

M/S the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore