CIT v. Smt. Premlata Jalani

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7255/MUM/2025(AY: 2023-24) M/s. Rallis India Ltd. vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- C/o Kalyaniwalla and Circle-8(1)(1), Room No. 624, 6th Floor, Mistry LLP, 2nd Floor, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN/GIR No:AABCR2657N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri M.M. Golwala and Shri Shubhay Jathan Respondent by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 14.01.2026 D…

M/S. RALLIS INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7255/MUM/2025(AY: 2023-24) M/s. Rallis India Ltd. vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- C/o Kalyaniwalla and Circle-8(1)(1), Room No. 624, 6th Floor, Mistry LLP, 2nd Floor, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN/GIR No:AABCR2657N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri M.M. Golwala and Shri Shubhay Jathan Respondent by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 14.01.2026 D…

GANESH CHHAGANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2020-21

…tted that ld. CIT(A) is unjustified in sustaining the interest levied u/s 234C merely on the ground that assessee had filed return of income on ITR Form 3. He also placed reliance on the judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT vs Smt. Premlata Jalani (2003) 264 ITR 744 (Rajasthan) and Emem Freight Forwarders vs DCIT (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 294 (Mumbai-Trib.). The ld. Counsel also filed paper book comprising copies of documents and details filed before the AO and CIT(A) highlighting the fact that assessee has not earned any income under the head business and profession. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the…

HAMILTON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO -WD 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 8 & 9, Ground Floor, Kakad, Chamber, 132, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaach0375E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Piyush Chhajed, C.A Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

…umari Kumar Advani vs. ACIT (CPC) in [IT Appeal No. 7661 (MUM) of 2013 dated 13.07.16] Express Newspapers Ltd v. Jt. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 41 Mahendra U. Shah v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 3048 (MUM) of 2003 Hindustan International v. ITO (2010) 96 ITR 123 (Chnd) [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Rajasthan) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Premlata Jalan Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Interest chargeable – Assessment year 2000-01 – Whether liability to pay tax by way of advance tax in respect of transaction resulting in capital gains arises only after transaction has taken place or event has occurred - Held, yes – Whether w…

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TAL MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

…d that interest u/s 234C of the Act could be levied only on the returned income and not on the assessed income. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs SmtPremlataJalani reported in 264 ITR 744 (Raj). Accordingly, the Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee for the Asst Year 2010-11 is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3632/Mum/2014 for the Asst Year 2010-11 is partly allowed. ITA No. 941/Mum/2016 – Asst Year 2011-12 – Assessee Appeal 8. The Ground Nos. 1.1. to 1.5. raised by the assessee for the Asst Year…

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ssessed income. In this context, he has relied upon the following decisions:– i) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. v/s ITO, [2009] 27 SOT 58 (Mum.) (URO); ii) Wipro Information Technology Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2004] 88 TTJ 778 (Bang.); iii) CIT v/s Smt. Premlata Jalani, [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Raj.); iv) Mrs. Prabha Lal v/s CIT, [2004] 269 ITR 212 (Patna). 36. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order. 37. Having considered rival submissions and examined the provisions of section 234C of the Act in the light of the decisions cited before us, we are of the view that interest under section 234C of the Ac…

SIDHMICRO EQUITIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. (CPC), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhansidhmicro Equities Private Ltd. Acit (Cpc), 706, Raheja Journal Marg, Income Tax Department, 214, Nariman Point, Post Bag No.2, Electricity Mumbai-400021. Post Office, Vs. Pan: Aaaca6782E Bangalore-560100. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Manoj Mundra With Miss Natasha Shah (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

…section 234C can only be charged on the shortfall and not on the entire amount of tax. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following three decisions: (i) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Premlata Jalani [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Rajasthan). (ii) Smt. Premlata jalani v. ACIT [2002] 75 TTJ 172 (Jodhpur). (iii) Gautam Vinod Daftary vs. DCIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 85 (Mum.Trib.). 4. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 5. We have considered the submission of parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. There…

PFIZER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Pfizer Limited, Acit Range 8(2), Patel Estate, Off S.V. Rd. Aayakar Bahwan, बनाम/ Jogeshwari (W), M.K. Marg, Vs. Mumba-400102 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp3334M

…rgued that under these circumstances proviso below section 234C(1)(b) became applicable and interest was not leviable to this extent. Reliance has been placed by Ld. Counsel on the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Premlata Jalani 264 ITR 744. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of lower authorities. 12.1. We have gone through the submissions made, material placed before us and judgments relied by both the sides. The facts narrated by Ld. Counsel remain undisputed. The property was sold after 15th March of the F.Y., and thus, capital gain arose to assessee after time…