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 1Supreme Court of India2001#156 most cited

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.

452

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 370,744 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala · 252 ITR 1 · mandatory interest · section 234A · section 234B · section 234C · levy of interest · strict interpretation tax laws · purposive interpretation · interest calculation

Also reported as

119 Taxmann 352

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 234C Section 250 Section 234A Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 215 section 210 interest u/s 234c section 115ja interest under section 234c interest under section 234a section 21 mistake apparent on record interest u/s 234b interest under section 234b section 234c section 260

Judgments citing CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

C L Chandradhara, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99 are partly allowed

ITA 3265/BANG/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate &

Section 1Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 22

…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. 6. Ground No. 4 for Assessment Year 1996-97 to 1998-99 – Income from KBR Company 6.1 In support…

C L Chandradhara, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1998-99 are partly allowed

ITA 3264/BANG/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate &

Section 1Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 22

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…establish that his case falls within any of the cls. (a) to (m) of r. 6DD. Burden would be upon the assessee to establish under which particular clause his case falls.—CIT vs. Tara Agencies [2007] 292 ITR 444 (SC) and CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC) relied on. (emphasis by us) Continuing further, on facts, the tribunal in Dhanshree Ispat (supra) found that the freight expenditure had indeed been incurred, noting the fact that the truck drivers, as per the trade practice, did not accept payments other than in cash. In the present case, the payments have been made in cash for no apparent r…

Kare Electronics & Development Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 799/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Kare Electronics & Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Development Private Limited, Income Tax, Flat No.101, 1St Floor, Eden Park, Circle – 11(5), No.20, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aabck 7679 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Pradeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…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. 6. Ground No.3 – Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) of the IT Rules, 1962 6.1 In this ground…

M/S Lamina Suspensions Products Limited, Mangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Taaaax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are partly allowed

ITA 337/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Lamina Suspensions Products Ltd., Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of #13-12-1394, 8Th Floor, Rambhavan Income Tax, Complex, Kokial Bail, Range -2, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru. Pan : Aaacl 3061 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Nagendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…liable to be charged interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D 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 said interest. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. ITA Nos. 336 and 337/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 5 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year…

M/S Lamina Suspensions Products Ltd, Mangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-2, Mangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are partly allowed

ITA 336/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Nagendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

Section 10(34)Section 14A

Sri Damodar Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 3052/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Damodar Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 101, Yellapa Reddy House, Ward – 4[2][2], 3Rd Cross, Tmn Street, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Aizpr 4884 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

…imself liable to be charged interest u/s 234A and 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 234A and 234B of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to Page 7 of 13 re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 6. Ground No. 3: Transfer as per section 2(47)(v) of the Act 6.1…

Smt Roopa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 3046/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Roopa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 101, Yellapa Reddy House, Ward – 7[2], 3Rd Cross, Tmn Street, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Avwpr 4000 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to be charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and Page 8 of 13 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 and 234B of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 6. Ground No. 3: Transfer as per section 2(47)(v) of the Act 6.1 In this groun…

Sri Srinivas Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 3045/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Srinivas Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 102, Sai Deep Heera Apartments, Ward – 7[2], 6Th Main, 1St Cross, Bangalore. New Thippasandra, Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Avfpr 6754 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 250

…imself liable to be charged interest u/s 234A and 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 234A and 234B of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 6. Ground No. 3: Transfer as per section 2(47)(v) of the Act 6.1 In this groun…

Sri Sirajuddin Chaman Miah Sab Mulla, Haveri vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Haveri

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 2981/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2981/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Shri. Sirajuddin Chaman Miah Sab Mulla, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 47, Vi, Tippaikoppa Village, Ward – 2, P.O. Masur, Hirekerur Tq., Haveri. Haveri Dist – 581 111. Pan : Cgjpm 6493 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kabila H, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 68

…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. 6. Ground No. 2 – Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act 6.1 In this ground (supra), the…

Sri Dheeraj Govindappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 2724/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Sai Rath, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

…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 said interest. 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 to this order. 6. Ground No. 2 – Exemption u/s 54F of the Act 6.1 This ground raised by the assessee (supra), challenges th…

M/S Dell International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 2847/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2847/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Dell International Services India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income-Tax (Large Tax Payers (For The Merged Entity Wyse Technology Unit), Software Development India Private Bangalore. Limited) 12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560071. Pan: Aaacw 5601 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…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 and 234C of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 9. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly a…

Sri Ambsa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2744/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…enies itself liable to be charged interest u/s 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 is upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC) and therefore, the action of the AO in charging the said interest is upheld. The AO is, however, diverted to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234B and 234D of the Act, if any, while giving effect to these orders. 6. Ground No. 3, 3.1 and 4 – Addition on account of Rental income 6.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee assails the ad…

Sri Ambasa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2743/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

Sri Ambasa R Hsbib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2742/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

Smt Urmila Ramesh, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 2506/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. K. R. Narayan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

…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 AO’s action in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable while giving effect to this order. ITA Nos. 2505 and 2506/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 15 7. Ground No. 3 and 3.1 – Agricultural income 7.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee challenges the orders of the CIT(A)…

Smt Urmila Ramesh, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed

ITA 2505/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. K. R. Narayan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 57

…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 AO’s action in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable while giving effect to this order. ITA Nos. 2505 and 2506/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 15 7. Ground No. 3 and 3.1 – Agricultural income 7.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee challenges the orders of the CIT(A)…

Shri B J Badrinath, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed

ITA 2938/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri. B. J. Badrinath, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #377/D, 14Th Main, Ward – 4(3)(1), Shanthinikethan Layout, Bangalore. Arekere, Bannerakatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aatpb 3237 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 54F

…imself liable to be charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the AO has no discretion in the matter. This principle has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala in 252 ITR 1(SC) and I therefore uphold the AO’s action in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 7. Ground No. 4 – Claim of Exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 7.1 The learned AR for the assessee, in support of the ground raised on this…

Sri P Bhudeva Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2677/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. P. Bhudeva Reddy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #14, 6Th “A” Main, 3Rd Cross, Ward – 5(3)(1), Talacauvery Nagar, Bangalore. Byatanarayanapura Post, Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 092. Pan : Aaxpr 7421 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Guruprasad B. L, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Guruprasad B. L, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…iable to be charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the assessee has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala in 252 ITR 1 (SC) and I therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the said interest. The AO is however directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 14th day o…

M/S High Range Coffee Curing Pvt Ltd, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2526/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. High Range Coffee Curing Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(1), Mysore Madikere Road, Mysuru. Abbur, Periyapatna, Mysore District – 571 107. Pan : Aaach 8173 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 M/s. High Range Coffee Curing Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(1), Mysore Madikere Road, Mysuru. Abbur, Periyapatna, Mysore District – 571 107. PAN : AAACH 8173 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. K. R. Narayana, JCIT Date of hearing : 06.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2018 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A, Mysore dated 28.06.201…