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

Kamlesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1462/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kamlesh Gupta Dy. Commissioner Of 59, Mount Unique 62-A, Vs. Income-Tax (13)(3)(1) Peddar Road, Room No. 229, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 026 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aegpg6788R

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kanandan, D.R
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…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. 16. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the op…

ITO -6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Kamanwala Housing Construction Ltd., Mumba

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1678/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

For Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar
Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…sment order on this account. This ground of appeal is allowed. Ground No.6 relates to levying interest under section 234B & 234C of the Act. The levy of interest is mandatory as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V Anjum M H Ghaswala (2001) (252 ITR 1) (SC). Hence, the contention of the appellant cannot be considered to be legally tenable. Therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. In Ground No. 7 the assessee contested initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This ground of appeal does not have any merit as no prejudice is caused to appellant merely by initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty…

P Amruth Prasad, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 936/HYD/2018[2008/09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2008-09 P. Amruth Prasad, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.9-1-164, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Amsri Plaza, S.D. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Secunderabad-500 003. Hyderabad. Pan: Acupp 3686 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri K. C. Devdas Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 Order

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 234A(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250(6)

…); U/s. 234B (Rs. 55,47,347/-); U/s. 234C (Rs. 2,69,910/-) and interest U/s. 234A(3) (Rs.6,56,537/-) aggregating to Rs. 79,32,766/-. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum Ghaswalla 252 ITR 1 (SC) held that levy of interest U/s.234A/B/C of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. A.O has erroneously computed and levied the interest U/s. 234A, B, C and U/s. 234A(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR fu…

Shri. Kushal Virendra Tandon, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

ITA 7572/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Kushal Virendra Tandon Acit -16(1) 802, Rustomjee Enclave, Vs. Room No. 439, 4Th Floor, Upper Juhu, Behind Dn Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Police Station, Andheri West, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 058 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Adxpt7623G (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 37(1)Section 68

…before us the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. As the charging of interest under the said respective sections is mandatory as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala & Ors. (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), therefore, the A.O is directed to recompute the same while giving effect ITA No. 7572/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 23 Shri Kushal Virendra Tandon Vs. ACIT -16(1) to our aforesaid order. The Ground of appeal no. 5 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 24. The assessee has assailed the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of…

Partners Medical International, Inc(Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Medical International, Inc.), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4628/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.5200 /Mum/2017 Partners Medical International, The Deputy Commissioner Of Inc, [Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Vs. Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) - Medical International, Inc.] 3(3)(2), Room No. 1603, C/O Pricewater House Coopers 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (P), Pwc House, Plot No. 18/A, Nariman Point, Guru Nanak Road, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Iyengar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…No. 6 is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The assessee has assailed before us the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act. As the levy of interest is mandatory as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum H.M. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), therefore, we herein direct the A.O to re-determine the interest liability of the assessee while giving effect to our appellate order. The Ground of appeal No. 7 is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. The assessee has assailed the incorrect recovery of interest u/s 244A of the Act. It is the claim of the assessee that the A.O had erred in…

Partners Medical International, Inc(Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Medical International, Inc.), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5200/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.5200 /Mum/2017 Partners Medical International, The Deputy Commissioner Of Inc, [Earlier Known As Partners Harvard Vs. Income Tax (Intl. Taxation) - Medical International, Inc.] 3(3)(2), Room No. 1603, C/O Pricewater House Coopers 16Th Floor, Air India Building, (P), Pwc House, Plot No. 18/A, Nariman Point, Guru Nanak Road, Mumbai - 400021 Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Iyengar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…No. 6 is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The assessee has assailed before us the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act. As the levy of interest is mandatory as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anjum H.M. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), therefore, we herein direct the A.O to re-determine the interest liability of the assessee while giving effect to our appellate order. The Ground of appeal No. 7 is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. The assessee has assailed the incorrect recovery of interest u/s 244A of the Act. It is the claim of the assessee that the A.O had erred in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Canadian International School Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2535/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiita 2535/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(DR)
Section 143Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2535/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Dy. Commissioner of M/s Canadian International Income-Tax, School Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(1), No.8, Prestige Nebula, Bengaluru. Vs. Level-5, Bangalore North. Bengaluru-560 001. PAN – AACCC 3383 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 08-07-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16-07-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL Present appeal has been…

North Karnataka Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4372/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No. 4372 & 4373/Mum/2012 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) North Karnataka Expressway Acit – 10(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Center, Plot No. C-22; G- M.K. Road, Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400 020 Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051 Pan No. Aabcn3062F

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 234BSection 40Section 80G

…5-06 & 2006-07 19 North Karnataka Expressway ltd. Vs. ACIT-10(1) 12. The assessee has assailed the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. As the levy of interest is mandatory as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anju M.H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), therefore, the same being consequential, the A.O is directed to recompute the same while giving effect to our aforesaid order. The Ground of appeal No. 6 is disposed of in terms of our aforesaid observations. 13. The Ground of appeal No. 7 and the additional ground of appeal no. 5 being general in nature are dismissed as not pressed. 14. Re…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1455/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…234B, 234C of the Act. Smt. Rina S. Mehta 30. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the issue is decided against the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswalla (252 ITR 1) SC wherein it has been held that charging of interest under the above three sections is mandatory. We accordingly uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 31. The issue raised in ground No.8 is against the confirmation of the action of the AO by Ld. CIT(A) in respect of calculation of interest under…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(1) Cen RG 4, Mumbai vs. Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2016[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Daniel, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…234B, 234C of the Act. Smt. Rina S. Mehta 30. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the issue is decided against the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswalla (252 ITR 1) SC wherein it has been held that charging of interest under the above three sections is mandatory. We accordingly uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the ground No.7 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 31. The issue raised in ground No.8 is against the confirmation of the action of the AO by Ld. CIT(A) in respect of calculation of interest under…

M/S. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…w. 96. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C is mandatory under the provisions of the Act as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 SC and therefore the ground No.17 is dismissed. So far as the ground No.18 is concerned, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee that while computing the interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act , the tax deductible at source on the income assessed has to be reduced as has been held in the case of M/s. Growmore Leasing Investment…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Growmore Research & Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1196/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

…w. 96. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that the interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C is mandatory under the provisions of the Act as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswala 252 ITR 1 SC and therefore the ground No.17 is dismissed. So far as the ground No.18 is concerned, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee that while computing the interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act , the tax deductible at source on the income assessed has to be reduced as has been held in the case of M/s. Growmore Leasing Investment…

Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3304/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3303/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) आअसं. 3304/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2008-09) Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Shop Nos.10-11, Kenwood Apartment Chs Ltd., Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aabcb 7448M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito- Ward 12(1)(3) Room No.145A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

….e. ITO, Ward 12(1)(3). The reasons for reopening assessment should have been recorded by the assessing officer having valid jurisdiction. In support of his third objection the ld. AR of the assessee relied on following decisions: i. CIT v. Anjum H. Ghaswala, 252 ITR 1 (SC); ii. CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 212 Taxman 275 (Raj.); iii. Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, 307 ITR 115 (Guj.); iv. Tata Sons Ltd. v. ACIT, 76 taxmann.com 126 (Mum.- Trib.) The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessment is liable to be quashed on the legal grounds raised by the assessee…

Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3303/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3303/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) आअसं. 3304/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2008-09) Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Shop Nos.10-11, Kenwood Apartment Chs Ltd., Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aabcb 7448M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito- Ward 12(1)(3) Room No.145A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

….e. ITO, Ward 12(1)(3). The reasons for reopening assessment should have been recorded by the assessing officer having valid jurisdiction. In support of his third objection the ld. AR of the assessee relied on following decisions: i. CIT v. Anjum H. Ghaswala, 252 ITR 1 (SC); ii. CIT vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., 212 Taxman 275 (Raj.); iii. Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT, 307 ITR 115 (Guj.); iv. Tata Sons Ltd. v. ACIT, 76 taxmann.com 126 (Mum.- Trib.) The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessment is liable to be quashed on the legal grounds raised by the assessee…

Jasjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4097/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 131Section 143Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.4096/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.4097/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) Shri Jasjit Singh, vs. ITO, Ward 41 (1), 29/56, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 026. (PAN : ABHPS1536P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sachin Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date of Order : 03.03.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA No.4096/Del.…

Jasjit Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4096/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 131Section 143Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA No.4096/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.4097/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) Shri Jasjit Singh, vs. ITO, Ward 41 (1), 29/56, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 026. (PAN : ABHPS1536P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sachin Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date of Order : 03.03.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA No.4096/Del.…

Sudhir S Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7132/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Gopani, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 14ASection 234ASection 69C

…est under section 234A, 234B & 234C as made by the AO. 12. After perusing the facts on record and the impugned order, we find that the issue is decided against the assessee by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum H. Ghaswalla (252 ITR 1) SC wherein it has been held that charging of interest on the above three sections is mandatory. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly ground No.4 is dismissed. 13. The issue raised in ground No.5 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) who has failed to appreciate that income earned in the hands of assessee was subjec…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(3), Mumbai vs. Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6213/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

…ead "Income from other Sources". Accordingly, ground no 1 is partly allowed. 6. Ground Nos 2 & 3 of the appeal relates to charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum. H. Ghaswalla (252 ITR 1), wherein it is held that the charging of interest is mandatory under the provisions of law. Accordingly, ground Nos 2 & 3 of the appeal is dismissed.” 14. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, it is quite clear that the CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of the decision of Hon‟ble ITAT in the case of Sudhir S. Mehta in ITA. No.5799/M…

Growmore Leasing & Investment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 6092/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6092, 6093 & 6091/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Growmore Leasing & बिधम/ Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) Investment Ltd. Room No. 1921, Air India Vs. 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400018. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.6213, 6214 & 6215/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Cen Cir 4(3) बिधम/ Growmore Leasing & Room No. 1921, Air India Investment Ltd. Vs. Bldg, 19Th Floor, Nariman 32 Madhuli Apartment, 3Rd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Dr. A. B. Rd, Worli, Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapm4491J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. Ita. No.6092/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali GopaniFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 234A

…ead "Income from other Sources". Accordingly, ground no 1 is partly allowed. 6. Ground Nos 2 & 3 of the appeal relates to charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum. H. Ghaswalla (252 ITR 1), wherein it is held that the charging of interest is mandatory under the provisions of law. Accordingly, ground Nos 2 & 3 of the appeal is dismissed.” 14. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, it is quite clear that the CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of the decision of Hon‟ble ITAT in the case of Sudhir S. Mehta in ITA. No.5799/M…

M/S Mahesh Investments vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/254/2014HC Karnataka06 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 234Section 234ASection 234A(1)Section 260Section 260A

…ken by the Tribunal is just and proper and relief has rightly been granted to the assessee. In support of his submissions, he has 8 placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. ANJUM M.H.GHASWALA’ 252 ITR 1(SC). 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of the provisions of the Act namely Sections 2(8), 2(40), explanation-3 to Section 234A(1) of the Act: Section 2(8) " assessment" includes…