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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barminco Indian Underground Mining Services LLP, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-28(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2253/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

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…

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…pulated therein. The change brought about by the Amending Act (Finance Act, 1987) is a clear indication of the fact that the intention of the legislature was to make the collection of statutory interest mandatory [CIT vs. ANJUM M.H. GHASWALA &amp; ORS. (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC)). The decision in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, a five Judge Bench decision of Supreme Court, is binding and in the said judgment, the Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that interest u/s 234B is mandatory in nature [KARANVIR SINGH GOSSAL vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 692 (SC)]. In CIT vs Deep Awadh Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR…

Sh. Gaurang Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, C.A. (Thr. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-VH)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…ase and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act." Decision on Ground No. 3: -Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is a compulsory levy as held by Hon. Supreme Court Constitution Bench in Anjum MH Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC). As such there is no merit in the contention of the appellant which are rejected. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 7.4 Ground No. 4 of appeal:-"The Appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing." Decision on Ground No. 4: This ground, being general in nature, does not require adj…

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1344/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

…axes. The other ways of discharging the liability were by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax. The failure to do so would attract interest u/s 234B and 234C which is mandatory in nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum B. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1). Finally, Ld. AO charged interest u/s 234B & 234C while raising tax demand against the assessee. The demand aggregated to Rs.566.53 Lacs including interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C and stated that such interest is payable only if t…

Msc Agency (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 929/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.929/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) MSC Agency (India) Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(2) 545, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Limited Vs. MSC House, Andheri Kurla Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AACCM 7663 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Assessee by Shri Hardik Nirmal Ms. Tejal Saraf Respondent by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing : 14.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These appeal…

Msc Agency (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 928/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.929/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) MSC Agency (India) Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(2) 545, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Limited Vs. MSC House, Andheri Kurla Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AACCM 7663 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Assessee by Shri Hardik Nirmal Ms. Tejal Saraf Respondent by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing : 14.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These appeal…

Msc Agency (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 927/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.929/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) MSC Agency (India) Private ACIT, Circle-2(2)(2) 545, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Limited Vs. MSC House, Andheri Kurla Road, Maharishi Karve Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 PAN/GIR No. AACCM 7663 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Dhanesh Bafna Assessee by Shri Hardik Nirmal Ms. Tejal Saraf Respondent by : Shri R. R. Makwana Date of Hearing : 14.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These appeal…

Mahaveer Ranka HUF, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 965/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Mr. R R Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R

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…

Mahaveerkumar Kanwarlal Ranka, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 224/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Mr. R R Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R

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…