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 369,743 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 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 234ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 215section 210interest u/s 234csection 115jainterest under section 234cinterest under section 234asection 21mistake apparent on recordinterest u/s 234binterest under section 234bsection 234csection 260

Judgments citing CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

Meridien Sa, Mumbai vs. ADIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are partly allowed

ITA 6605/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Harshad Vengurlekar
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 66A

…and consequential, and therefore no infirmity could be pointed out in the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. D.R in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of : CIT Vs. Anjum M.H Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC). 4.6. We have considered the rival submissions of either side and perused the orders of the authorities below and are of the considered opinion that the contention of the Ld. A.R that as the income of the assessee company 17 ITA No.6578 /MUM/2012,(A.Y. 2008-09) ITA No.6605 /MUM/2012,(A.Y. 200910 was subject to deduction of tax at source, t…

Meridien Sa, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It)Cir 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee company are partly allowed

ITA 6578/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Harshad Vengurlekar
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 66A

…and consequential, and therefore no infirmity could be pointed out in the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. D.R in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of : CIT Vs. Anjum M.H Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC). 4.6. We have considered the rival submissions of either side and perused the orders of the authorities below and are of the considered opinion that the contention of the Ld. A.R that as the income of the assessee company 17 ITA No.6578 /MUM/2012,(A.Y. 2008-09) ITA No.6605 /MUM/2012,(A.Y. 200910 was subject to deduction of tax at source, t…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Company P. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III
Section 263Section 92A

…when a statute vests certain powers in an authority to be exercised in a certain manner that authority has to exercise those powers only in a manner provided in the statute itself. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "CIT vs. Anjum Ghaswala", 252 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has also taken a similar view in the case of "Ghanshyam K. Kharbani", 346ITR 443 (Bombay). 38. The Department has, then, also sought to place reliance on "Ranabaxy Laboratories vs. Addl. CIT" , 110 ITD 428 (Del.). In that case, it was held, with regard to assessment year 2004-05, that it is not right to…

Panther Fincap & Management Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal (in quantum) is dismissed, and that challenging the levy of penalty u/s

ITA 2374/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2849/Mum/2008 & & 2374/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Panther Fincap & Management Services Asst. Cit, Central Circle 40, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Bhupen Chambers, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 9, Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 3045 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. P. Daniel

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 73

…hat it, under liquidation, could no longer be regarded as in business. 5. The only other issue in appeal is in respect of the charge of interest u/s. 234B of the Act (vide Gd. 2). The charge is mandatory (refer: CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala and Others [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC)), and which perhaps also explains the non pressing of this Ground by the ld. counsel during hearing. We decide accordingly, even as the assessee would get consequential relief, i.e., in respect of the addition (qua dividend at Rs.12.14 lacs) deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and against which the Revenue is not in appeal. 6. We decide accordingly, di…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. at Kearney Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5575/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, At Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan:Aadca0861H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. M. Govil, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 92

…1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ADIT, AT Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi PAN:AADCA0861H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 74/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 5574/Del/2012) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) AT Kearney Ltd, ADIT, 357, H-9, Vardhman Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, Vs. Corporate Plaza, Room No. 204, Netaji Subhash Marg, Drum Shape Building, Pitam…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S at Kearney Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5574/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, At Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi Pan:Aadca0861H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. M. Govil, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 92

…1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ADIT, AT Kearney Ltd, Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, 357, H-9, Vardhman Vs. Room No. 204, Corporate Plaza, Drum Shape Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi PAN:AADCA0861H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 74/Del/2013 (In ITA No. 5574/Del/2012) (Assessment Year: 2004-05) AT Kearney Ltd, ADIT, 357, H-9, Vardhman Circle-I(I), Intl. Taxation, Vs. Corporate Plaza, Room No. 204, Netaji Subhash Marg, Drum Shape Building, Pitam…

M/S. Zte Corporation, Gurgaon vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground is

ITA 1109/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 148

…n'ble Delhi High Court dated 30-08-2010 in the case of DIT Vs Jacobs 56 ITA 5870/Del/12 & ors. – ZTE Corporation Civil Incorporated, without appreciating that the levy of interest u/s 234B is mandatory as held in the case of CIT Vs Anjum M. Ghaswala & others 252 ITR 1 (SC). 55. In the revised grounds of appeal raised by department there are primarily 2 issues. Firstly, the department is aggrieved by the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the income from supply of software was to be treated as business income instead of royalty considered by the AO. The second issue on which department is aggrieved is in regard to fi…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Zte Corporation

In the result, this ground is

ITA 5974/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 148

…n'ble Delhi High Court dated 30-08-2010 in the case of DIT Vs Jacobs 56 ITA 5870/Del/12 & ors. – ZTE Corporation Civil Incorporated, without appreciating that the levy of interest u/s 234B is mandatory as held in the case of CIT Vs Anjum M. Ghaswala & others 252 ITR 1 (SC). 55. In the revised grounds of appeal raised by department there are primarily 2 issues. Firstly, the department is aggrieved by the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the income from supply of software was to be treated as business income instead of royalty considered by the AO. The second issue on which department is aggrieved is in regard to fi…

Zte Corporation vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground is

ITA 5871/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 148

…n'ble Delhi High Court dated 30-08-2010 in the case of DIT Vs Jacobs 56 ITA 5870/Del/12 & ors. – ZTE Corporation Civil Incorporated, without appreciating that the levy of interest u/s 234B is mandatory as held in the case of CIT Vs Anjum M. Ghaswala & others 252 ITR 1 (SC). 55. In the revised grounds of appeal raised by department there are primarily 2 issues. Firstly, the department is aggrieved by the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the income from supply of software was to be treated as business income instead of royalty considered by the AO. The second issue on which department is aggrieved is in regard to fi…

Zte Corporation vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground is

ITA 5870/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Smt. Beena A. Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Sharma CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 139Section 148

…n'ble Delhi High Court dated 30-08-2010 in the case of DIT Vs Jacobs 56 ITA 5870/Del/12 & ors. – ZTE Corporation Civil Incorporated, without appreciating that the levy of interest u/s 234B is mandatory as held in the case of CIT Vs Anjum M. Ghaswala & others 252 ITR 1 (SC). 55. In the revised grounds of appeal raised by department there are primarily 2 issues. Firstly, the department is aggrieved by the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the income from supply of software was to be treated as business income instead of royalty considered by the AO. The second issue on which department is aggrieved is in regard to fi…

Vijay M. Haria, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 4859/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vijay M. Haria Income Tax Officer-13(3)(21) 502, Sharda Chambers No.2 Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Vs. Bhat Bazar, Masjid Bunder Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai 400003 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabph1129C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Kirtane
Section 143(3)Section 43(5)Section 68Section 69Section 70

…liable to be charged 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 Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC) and we, therefore, uphold the decision of the AO in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th…

Firestorm Electronics Corpo. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1224/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfirestorm Electronics Corp. P. Ltd. A C I T, Circle 1(1) 5Th Floor, The International Mumbai Vs. 16, New Marine Lines Cross Rd. No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacf4730D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh I ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Moksha Mehta
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 28Section 28(1)Section 41(1)

…charged 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 & Others (252 ITR 1) (SC) and we therefore uphold the AO’s action in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 6. Ground No. 3, being general in nature calls for no adjudication and is therefore dismissed as infructuous. 7. Additional…

Film Logic India P.Latd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD-1) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1007/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Film Logic India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd-1) 16 G, Laxmi Industrial Estate Central Range 7 Vs. Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai Mumbai 400053 Pan - Aaacf5879M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 234A

…erest under section 234A, 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 & Others (252 ITR 1) (SC) and we therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable, if any, under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act while giving effect to this order. 7. In Ground No. 5 the assessee seeks stay on recovery proceedings taking into consideration t…

Upma R Goyal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5786/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Upma R. Goyal Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4) 6/36, 5Th Floor, Bmc Bldg. Mumbai Vs. Keshavrao Khadye Marg Hajiali, Mumbai 400034 Pan - Aggpg9498L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68

…t under section 234B of the Act in the year under consideration. 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 in 252 ITR 1 and we therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the assessee interest under section 234B of the Act. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 7. Ground No. 3 being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon and it is accordingly…

Vision, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s for A

ITA 8501/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vision A C I T, Circle 19(3) 49/2358, 1St Floor, Bandra Mumbai Saikrupa Co-Op Housing Vs. Society Ltd., Bandra (E) Mumbai 400051 Pan - Aaefv5389H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Goel
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

…arged interest under section 234A, 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 we therefore uphold the action of the AO in charging the said interest. The AO is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable, if any, while giving effect to the findings in this order. 6. Ground No. 3 is general in nature and therefore no adjudication is called for thereon. 7. In the result, the assessee’s for A.Y. 2007-08 is…

CIT vs. Janata Party

The appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to

ITA/188/2002HC Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 13ASection 142(1)Section 260A

…rpose of law is well subserved.” vi. Since the Assessee had been claiming Nil income any variation in the income was an academic issue. As regards claim for interest, it was held that in the light of the decision in C.I.T. v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC), the Assessee deserved to succeed. The present appeal 29. While admitting the present appeal on 15th January 2004, the following question was framed: “Whether the finding is perverse and contrary to evidence on record ITA No.188 of 2002 Page 14 of 27 in so far as applicability of Section 13A of the Income-tax Act,…

Sun TAN Tarading Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12

ITA 5087/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negisun Tan Trading Company Limited, Mumbai, C/O. Giiners & Pressers Ltd., Oriental House, 5Th Floor, 7, Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaccs 2091L ... Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D.Mistry/Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…interest under section. 234B and 234D of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) (SC) and we , therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under section. 234B and 234D of the Act while giving effect to this order. 6. In view of our decision allowing the assessee’s appeal in terms of the grounds raised at S…

Haresh H. Melwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1757/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Molti B. TotlaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…The assessees have raised a Ground qua levy of interest u/s. 234B. Even as we have allowed the appeal on merits (subject to verification of quantum), the Ground, not pressed before us, is without merit in view of the decision in CIT vs. Anjum Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC), also noted by the ld. CIT(A). (A.Y. 2007-08) 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms. Order pronounced in the open court on February 29, 2016 (Joginder Singh) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 29.02.2016 व."न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क"…

Navni9Ta H. Melwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1756/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Molti B. TotlaniFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…The assessees have raised a Ground qua levy of interest u/s. 234B. Even as we have allowed the appeal on merits (subject to verification of quantum), the Ground, not pressed before us, is without merit in view of the decision in CIT vs. Anjum Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC), also noted by the ld. CIT(A). (A.Y. 2007-08) 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms. Order pronounced in the open court on February 29, 2016 (Joginder Singh) (Sanjay Arora) "या"यक सद"य / Judicial Member लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 29.02.2016 व."न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क"…

M/S. Fiberfill Engineers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rehka Vimal DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 22(1)Section 22(3)Section 54Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…ng the course of assessment. She relied on following decisions in support of her contention that incentive provisions have to be given strict interpretation. - Smt. Tarulata Shyam & others Vs. CIT 108 ITR 345 (SC) - CIT Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & others (SC)252 ITR 1 - State of Punjab & others Vs. Surinder Kumar & others 194 ITR 434 (SC). 21 ITA 1853/Del/2015 28. Ld. DR further submitted that no proper reason has been given for not filing return in time. Ld. DR referred to Explanation 2 to section 139(1) which defines the term “due date”. She submitted that section 139(4) nowhere mentions that the due date a…