“Section 220(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 220Section 220(1)6 judgments

VIJAY STONE PRODUCT,SONEBHADRA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/ALLD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2011-12 Vijay Stone Product, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Bari Dala, Sonebhadra-231001 Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad Pan: Aagfv4724J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Lucknow Dated 29.10.2018 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed A Penalty Of Rs. 1 Lac Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 221 Of The Act Against The Total Levy Of Rs. 27,26,200/- Made By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Order Passed U/S 221(1) Of The It Act Imposing Huge Penalty & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) By Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unjustified & Incorrect In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Tax Liability On The Basis Of Assessment Order As Created Is Not Correct At All Therefore The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Of Rs. 1,00,000/- Is Unwarranted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer & His Action As Partly Confirmed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Is Totally Incorrect & Illegal & Hence The Question Of Maintaining Penalty Does Not Arise & Therefore So Maintained Penalty Is Liable To Be Deleted In All Fairness & In Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 153DSection 153D(1)(B)Section 220(2)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 276C(2)

penalty may kindly be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) considered the prayers of the assessee and after quoting from the provisions of section 220(1), 220(6) and section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, she held that the AO had allowed substantial opportunity to the assessee

SAMSARA SHIPPING PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6724/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsamsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 101/102, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Chakala Midc S.O., Mumbai Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 9285 Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Shri Sagar Joshi Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee, Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025 Of Addl./Jcit(A), Panchkula, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In The Appeal Is Concerning Levy Of Interest U/S. 220(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short). Of Course, Vide Letter Dated 17.12.2025 The Assessee Has Sought To Raise An Additional Ground, Challenging The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act On Account Of Non-Mentioning Of Document Identification Number (Din). Be That As It May, We Propose To Deal The Issue On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 156Section 220(1)Section 220(2)

assessee before the first appellate authority that since there was no failure on the part of the assessee, in terms of section 220(1) of the Act, there cannot be any levy of interest u/s. 220(1) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that interest cannot be levied ... Samsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO issued u/s. 156 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot be accused of violating the conditions of section 220(1) of the Act, so as to empower the A.O. to levy interest u/s. 220(2) of the Act. Therefore, levy of interest u/s. 220

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/RAN/2022[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

Under section 220(2), interest is chargeable from the date immediately following the end of the period mentioned in section 220(1) and ending with the date on which the amount is paid. This shows that the concept of continuing default is in-built in the section. Similarly, in section

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/RAN/2022[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

RED ROOSTER PERFORMANCE (INTERNATIONAL) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), TDS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 536/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahured Rooster Performance Vs The Income Tax Officer (International) Pvt. Ltd. Ward 3(1), Tds B-10, Ngef Industrial Estate Hmt Building, Bellary Road Whitefield Road Bangalore 560032 Mahadevapura Post Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aaecr1751N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mrs. Sunaina, Ca Respondent By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 O R D E R Per: L.P. Sahu, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1042909630(1) Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal Dated 29.04.2022 For Ay 2014-15. 2. The Solitary Substantial Issue Raised By The Assessee Challenges Levying Of Late Fee Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) For The Delay In Remittance Of Tds. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Designing, Modification, Manufacture, Trading Of Prototype

For Appellant: Mrs. Sunaina, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. CIT

Section 154Section 154(1)(c)Section 156Section 200ASection 220(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 271H(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU Before Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI vs. AVTAR SINGH KOCHAR , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7224/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT/DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(1)Section 220(2)Section 234A

power to the authority to levy interest only if the amount specified in any particular demand has not been paid in accordance with section 220(1) and that the tax determined in the rectification order does not relate back to the assessment order. In our view, this submission