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 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 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

Smt. Ayesha Basith, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 352/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.352/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt. Ayesha Basith, No.904A, Salarpuria Silver Woods, Rahat Bagh, No.15, Nagavarapalya, Bangalore-560 093 …. Appellant. Pan Aanpb 2693R Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(2), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 6.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore Dt.30.1.2015 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, An Individual Deriving Income Form House Property, Business & Capital Gains, Filed Her Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2010-11 On 31.7.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs.2,32,23,680. The Assessee'S Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Loss Of Rs.20,80,549

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)

…ged interest under Section 234A and 234B 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 6. Ground No.2 (2.1 to 2.4) - Business Loss – Rs.20,89,549. 6.1.1 The sole issue for consideration an…

G. Venkatesh, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1351/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1351/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri G. Venkatesh, No.199, 16Th Main, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041 …. Appellant. Pan Afepg 1125R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri S. Venkatesan, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit(D.R) Date Of Hearing : 21.9.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Bangalore Dt.19.07.2013 For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, An Individual Deriving Income From Pension, Consultation Fees & Commission, Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2006-07 On 14.8.2007 Declaring Income Of Rs.3,06,970. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Concluded Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') Vide Order Dt.17.12.2008

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(D.R)

Section 143(3)

…er Sections 234A, 234B and 234C 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 H Ghaswala & Others (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 7.1 Grounds No.2 and 3 relate to the only effective issue for consideration i.e. the cash depos…

Indira A Rohra, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(4), Thane

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4561/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

…” Maya A Rohra A.K.A Indira A. Rohra 7. However, with regard to the interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act the learned CIT(A) observed that in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghoswala 252 ITR 1 there is no discretion to the AO except to charge interest as per the procedure prescribed therein and therefore directed the AO to charge interest based on the addition as confirmed by him. 8. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that even 25% of the original addition as confirmed by the CIT(A) is n…

Indira A Rohra, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4559/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69C

Consulate Constructions, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1212/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazita Nos.1209 & 1212/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years – 2004-05 To 2006-2007 & 2009-10) M/S Consulate Constructions, Unit No.102, Consulate I, No.1, Richmond Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Aacfc7082Q. Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…e charged interest u/s 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 H. Ghaswalla reported in 252 ITR 1 (SC) and we, therefore, uphold the action in charging the assessee the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recomputed the interest chargeable u/s 234D of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst. years 2004-05 to 2006-07 partly allowed for statistical purpo…

Consulate Constructions, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the asst

ITA 1209/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

M. Rangaswamy vs. ITO

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the asst

ITA 1189/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazshri M Rangaswamy, M/S Swamy Service Station, 19Th Km, Tumkur Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Pan – Abapm5136G Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri V Srinivasan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16-9-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-9-2015

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri M Rangaswamy, M/s Swamy Service Station, 19th KM, Tumkur Road, Bangalore. . Appellant PAN – ABAPM5136G Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant by : Shri V Srinivasan, CA Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Date of Hearing : 16-9-2015 Date of Pronouncement : 24-9-2015 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) –…

M/S. Misys Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1425/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT(D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…the Act. The charging of interest under the aforesaid sections 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 Hon'ble Ghaswala & Others (252 ITR 1) (SC) and in this view of the matter, we uphold the Assessing Officer’s action in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to re-compute the interest chargeable under Section 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the op…

M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1423/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P.) A. No.1423/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/S.Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Crystal Downs, Embassy Golf Links, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bangalore-560 071 Pan Aaacg 2435N Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…erest under Sections 234B, 234C 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 20. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed. Order…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Ipass India P Ltd, Bangalore

In the result,Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 1310/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1292/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Ipass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Unit 501, Level V, Ward 11(2), Bangalore. No.6, Brunton Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aabcg 3659H Appellant Respondent. I.T.(T.P) A. No.1310/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, C.A. Revenue By : Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 9.7.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These Are Cross Appeals, One Each By The Assessee & Revenue, Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Bangalore Dt.18.8.2014 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Company Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Ipass Inc., Usa Providing Captive Software Development Support Services For Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) In Usa

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…to be charged interest under Section 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 H Ghaswala 252 ITR 1. In this view of the matter, we uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the assessee the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under Sections 234D of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 9. In Ground No.10, the assessee challenges the action of the Assessing Off…

Ipass India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Bangalore

In the result,Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 1292/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

M/S Maruthi Clothing Co., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 541/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shankar Prasad, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(2)Section 41(1)

…rged interest under Section 234Band 234C 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the 9 interest chargeable u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 9. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is partly allowed. Order prono…

C.K. Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 550/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Yadav, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68Section 69

…ged interest under Section 234B and 234C 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 6.1.1 In Grounds at S.Nos. 3 to 6, the assessee challenges the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in…

Sun Gard Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1487/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T.(T.P) A. No.1487/Bang/2012 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. Sun Gard Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Embassy Icon, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 001 Pan Aaace 7476K Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…o be charged interest under Section 234B 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 23. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed. Order pronou…

Nxp Semiconductors I P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1634/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. (T.P.) A. No.1634/Bang/2014 S.P. No.37/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Nxp Semi Conductors India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income I.T. Park, Nagawara Vill., Kasaba Hobli, Tax, Circle 12(2), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 045 Pan Aadcp 9454H Appellant Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Jahanzeb Akhtar, CIT-III, Bangalore

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 92C

…been charged under Sections 234B and 234C 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 H Ghaswala 252 ITR 1. In this view of the matter, we uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the assessee the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 15. In Ground No.16, the assessee challenges the action of the Ass…

Sri. Anil Kumar Joseph, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the cross objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

…terest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order....... 11.1 Thus, the Grounds at S.Nos. 2 to 4 of the assessee's appeal remain the only effectiv…

Mrs. Suvina Krupal, Somwarpet vs. ITO, Madikeri

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-

ITA 336/BANG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2015AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…erest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004- 05 are dismiss…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Pharmarc Consulting Services Gmbh, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT

Section 209(1)(d)Section 234B

…sed the following grounds. 2 IT(IT)A No.168(Bang)2015 “1. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of the case of Ansaldo Energia SPA Vs ADIT 115 TTJ(Chennai) 942 and the decision of the Hon’ble SC in the case of CIT Vs Anjum M.H.Ghuswallla & Others (252 ITR 1) wherein it was held that the levy of interest 234A, 234B & 234C is mandatory in nature. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the interest u/s 234B which defects the intent and purpose of the provisions contained in Section 209(1)(d) of the IT Act, 1961 and will nullify the powers of the revenue and is detrimental to the interest o…

M/S Silver Software Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

ITA 1642/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 143(3)

…ged interest under Section 234A and 234B 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234A and 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 6.1 Grounds at S.Nos.2 to 9 : The crux of these grounds raised is in respect of whether the income ea…

Sri. E. Krishnappa vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 325/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Mrs. Prathibha & Mrs. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ged interest under Section 234B and 234C 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 H Ghaswala (252 ITR 1) and we, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 10. In the interest, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed. Order pron…