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 368,382 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

Ram Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3002/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Tyagi, Son of AssesseeFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 234A

…est u/s 234A and 234B of the Act by the Assessing Officer on the assessed income is legally valid under the provisions of section 154 of the Act or not. 5. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum MH Ghaswala 252 ITR 1, held that interest to be levied u/s 234A and 234B of the Act are mandatory in nature. Further, the ld. CIT(A) pointed out that the Assessing Officer has in the assessment order had directed to charge interest as per law marking a distinguishable feature from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oswal Exports. Page 2 of 4…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…f interest under sections 234B and 234C amounting to ₹19,08,302/- and ₹40,656/- respectively, contending that the seized cash lying in the PD A/c ought to have been adjusted towards advance/self assessment tax liability. he Hon'ble CIT V. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1). II. Revenue's Rejoinder Submission 1. No Valid Application under Section 132B(1) Proviso The assessee has not filed any valid application within the statutory period of 30 days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, as mandated under the proviso to Section 132B(1) (i). The so-called "request" made in the return filed under secti…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…interest under sections 234B and 234C amounting to ₹19,08,302/- and ₹40,656/- respectively, contending that the seized cash lying in the PD A/c ought to have been adjusted towards advance/self- assessment tax liability. he Hon'ble CIT V. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1). II. Revenue's Rejoinder Submission 1. No Valid Application under Section 132B(1) Proviso The assessee has not filed any valid application within the statutory period of 30 days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, as mandated under the proviso to Section 132B(1) (i). The so-called "request" made in the return filed under secti…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Oscar Infra Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. Oscar Infra Pvt Ltd Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Office No. 707, 7Th Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Floor, Everest Nivara, Churchgate, Mumbai – Infotech Park, Plot No. 400020. D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Pan/Gir No. Aabco0152H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 70(2)

…l No. 4 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations 15. The assessee has further assailed the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. As the levy of interest as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H Ghaswala (2002) 252 ITR 1 (SC) is mandatory, therefore, the A.O is directed to rework out the same while giving appellate effect to our order. The Ground of appeal No. 5 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations". 5.5 Coming to the instant case, we reiterate that the Assessee by producing the relevant documents referred to above before the a…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Amit Sampathraj Shah, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5380/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 10Section 143Section 148

…three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that section 151 must be strictly adhered to because it contains "important safeguards". - In Dr Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor, Kannur University, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592 and CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1, the Supreme Court held that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. 4. Having said that, it is stated that, in the present case, the approval obtained for issuing the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is not in ac…

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

…ay prescribe." 65. It is important to take note of the word "shall" used in the section. No doubt thatunder the General Clauses Act, shall can be used as may or vice versa, but theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala,[2001] 252 ITR 1/119 Taxman 352, sitting in Constitution Bench explained the exact premise of the word "shall". The case was pertaining to the levy of interestunder section 234B on Chapter XIXA of the Income-tax Act, 30 i.e. SettlementCommission. In the decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, 'Nextly, the Commission has elaborately discussed the object of introd…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Niranjan Koirala, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…urposive interpretation under the direct tax laws and in this connection one may advert to the ratios in (1998) 234 ITR 261 (MP) Laxmandas Pranchand Vs. Union of India & Ors.; (1999) 236 /TR 595 (Cal) CIT Vs. Central Concrete & Allied Products Ltd. and (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC) CIT Vs. A.M. H. Ghaswala & Ors. 2.4 The legislative intent behind introduction of section 54F and subsequent amendments has always been to encourage purchase or construction of a new residential house after the disposal of an older original asset. The new asset to be acquired cannot be a part of the original or old asset. If the assessee enter…

Anuj Satishkumar Bansal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Mmber आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1267/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Anuj Satishkumar Bansal, Vs. Ito, 302, Shri Hari Appartment, Piplod Ward – 1(3)(1), Road Near Lancer Army School, Surat Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bwxpb3655C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 69A

…the Act. Since, addition u/s 69A of the Act has been deleted, the ground on levy of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act is infructuous. As regards the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anjum M.H. Ghasswala, 252 ITR 1 (SC) held that levy of interest is mandatory. The AO shall levy the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act as per law after giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 31/07/2025. (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMB…

Vijaya Singh, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(1), Patna, Bihar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

…T(Appeals). The issue relating to the levy of charging interest is concerned, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the opinion that levy of interest is mandatory as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -vs- Anjum M.H. Ghaswala reported in 252 ITR 1 (SC), therefore, the assessee cannot be considered to be legally tenable and hence dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following grounds:- (1) For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 3 Vijaya Singh (2) For that in the facts an…

Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1342/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1342/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nareshbhai Arjanbhai Lathiya, Vs. Ito, Plot No.97, Laxmi Society, Gajera Circle – 3(3)(3), School Road,Behind Gajera School, Surat Katargam, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adlpp8388A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayashree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…of the Act. Hence, the appeal is premature and does not require adjudication. 10. Ground No.4 pertains to levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D of the Act. Levy of interest is mandatory as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anjum M. H. Ghaswala, 252 ITR 1 (SC). It is also consequential to the addition in the assessment order. The AO is directed to rework the interest after giving effect to the order of the ITAT. Accordingly, the ground is partly allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 22/07/2025.…

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E) Circle, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2177/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2177/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)Section 80G

…appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. Learned DR further placed heavy reliance on the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ANJUM MH GHASWALA Vs. CIT 252 ITR 1 which was also referred in the case law, CIT Shimla Vs. M/s.Ruchira papers relied on by the Counsel of the assessee. Learned DR further submitted that the decision of coordinate bench of this tribunal passed in the case of Rishikesh Balbhim Pathare which was relied on by the Counsel of the assessee refers to the judgement passed by Hon’ble Patna Hi…

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-
Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.500/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Thermodyne Dynamics Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 17(3), Cherlapally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AABCV3257C (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee : Shri Pawan Kumar Represented by Chakrapa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 5179/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

…No. 4 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 15. The assessee has further assailed the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. As the levy of interest as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H Ghaswala (2002) 252 ITR 1 (SC) is mandatory, therefore, the A.O is directed to rework out the same while giving appellate effect to our order. The Ground of appeal No. 5 is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations”. 5.5 Coming to the instant case, we reiterate that the Assessee by producing the relevant documents referred to above before the a…

Sameer Shrikant Pise, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 12, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1078/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, CA (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva - Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1078/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Sameer Shrikant Pise, DCIT, Circle-12, Pune. House No.59, Rohan Seher, Pancard Club Road, Pune. vs. PAN : AHTPP 0431 A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri V. Balaji, CA (virtual) For Revenue : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva - Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of…

Weir Minerals (India) Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 4713/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2012-13]

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year 2012-13] M/s. Weir Mineral (India) Pvt. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ltd. Office Unit No.912 and Tax, Circle-27(1), 914, 9th Floor, DLF Tower, Vs New Delhi A Plot No.-10, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110025 PAN-AAACI0519D Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. Sumish Murgai, AR and Shri Kashish Gupta, CA Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2025…

Amitkumar Pravinchandra Reshamwala, Surat vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru / ITO (Int. Tax) Surat, CPC Bengaluru / ITO Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1240/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1240/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Pravinchandra Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Reshamwala Cpc, Bengaluru/Ao (Int. Tax) Vs. B-1004, Arihant Heightsopp Surat Stuti Icon. Auravpath, Palanpur-395 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agspr 4047 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

…cited supra, we do not find any merit in the ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the appellant and accordingly, same are dismissed. 7. The ground Nos 3 and 4 are interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H.Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 (SC) has held that interest u/s 234B is mandatory and automatic. Section 234B in clear terms imposes a mandate to collect interest at the rates stipulated therein. The expression ‘shall’ used in the said section cannot by any stretch of imagination we construed as ‘may’. Hence, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 are rejected. 8. Ground No.5 raised by assessee…

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 134/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 06.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 18,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). While

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 244ASection 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [PAN: ACKPT3269L] vs. ACIT, Ward-1 & TPS, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 27.12.2023 for Assessment Y…

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 132/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.10.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 37,97,390/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 207Section 207(2)Section 234BSection 234ESection 243BSection 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [PAN: ACKPT3269L] vs. ACIT, Ward-1 & TPS, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 27.12.2023 for Assessment Y…

Gck Stock Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1572/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 234Section 250Section 271

…. As regards ground no. 3 raised by the assessee regarding charging of Interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C, we find that this is merely consequential and mandatory in nature as per the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC). Accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the Interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234C after giving the Appeal Effect. As regards ground no. 3, the assessee has raised sub ground regarding imitation of penalty u/s.271 (1) (c). In the regard we find that, this ground is premature because mere imitation of penalty does not raise any dema…

Wasim Akram, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1314/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vipula Kumari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 142(1)Section 144

…und Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed. 6.2. Ground No. 3 and 4: These ground relates to levy of interest u/s 234A and 234b. Charging of interest is mandatory as held in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum 8 Wasim Akram , Sikar M. H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1. Therefore, this Ground Nos 3 and 4 of appeal are dismissed. 6.3. Ground No. 5: This ground relates to the appellant's right to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. Since this right was never exercised by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, this ground has become infructuous, so treated as dismissed. Therefore…