“advance tax”

Chapter XVII - Collection & Recovery (Advance tax)Chapter XVII-CSection 2(1) / Chapter XVII-C / ITR Schedule IT1,785 judgments

The decision most relied on for advance tax is Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (196 ITR 188), cited in 289 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on advance tax

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT

196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court

289

citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

DIT v. GE Packaged Power Inc.

373 ITR 65 · 2015 · High Court

199

citing judgments

Interest under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax is not leviable when the entire income is subject to tax deduction at source under section 195, as no advance tax liability arises for the assessee in such circumstances.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court

182

citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court

152

citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC

313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court

144

citing judgments

Where a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay tax at source under Section 195, the payee-assessee cannot be levied interest under Section 234B for failure to pay advance tax if the payer defaults on its TDS obligation. This principle may also extend to interest under Section 234C.

Topman Exports v. CIT

342 ITR 49 · 2012 · Supreme Court

121

citing judgments

Export incentives, such as DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) and advance license benefits, constitute income taxable on an accrual basis under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Profit arising on the transfer of DEPB is not eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC.

CIT v. Creative Dyeing & Printing Pvt. Ltd.

318 ITR 476 · 2009 · High Court

119

citing judgments

Genuine trade advances or amounts advanced for bona fide business transactions, driven by commercial expediency, do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raj Kumar

318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court

119

citing judgments

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

Judgments citing advance tax

Ritika Jain, Thane vs. ITO(It Tp), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhavan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 632/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

supposed to file return of income. At present appellant has to just tell whether he paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him and if he had not made such payment whether he wants exemption from operation of provisions of section ... appellant has failed to do so. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant has not made payment of amount equal to the advance tax which was due on its income. 7. Since the appellant has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal

Seth Rb Moondhra Memorial Charitable Trust, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption(1), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 2

adjustment of the tax and interest, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section 91, any rebate allowable under

Gopal Extrusions Pvt Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jalgaon

ITA 1633/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 143(3)

erred in confirming the interest charged of Rs.2,72,53,728/-,u/s.234B of the IT Act, even though, appellant was not liable to pay Advance tax in view of the provision of section 208 of the I T Act, and hence, provision of section

M/S. Trimble Information Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3266/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms.C. Sowndarya, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Rs.8,89,53,379/- by way of TDS amounting to Rs.54,48,060/-, the tax collected at source (TCS) amounting to Rs.17,212/- and advance tax of Rs.9,70,00,000/- and thus, claimed that it was eligible for refund of Rs.1,35,11,890/-. Subsequently, a communication u/s.143

Pradeep Wig, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

inability of authorities to frame a regular assessment after earlier assessment is set aside or nullified, tax deposited by an assessee by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, or tax deducted at source is not liable to be refunded to assessee, since its retention by revenue would

P P Corporation, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

income of the year under consideration. 14. Please provide the comparison of income reported, deductions/exemptions/rebate claimed, current year/carried forwarded loss set-off/adjusted, advance tax paid, self- assessment tax paid, TDS deducted, total tax paid, refund claimed for the current year under consideration and previous two years. 15. Provide

Chattar Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Mohali

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 459/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A. and Smt. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 249(2)(b)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

adjudication. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee primarily on two grounds: That the assessee failed to pay the advance tax equivalent as required o under section 249(4)(b) of the Act since no return of income was filed. That the appeal was filed

Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1712/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1712/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dhunseri House, 4A Woodburn Park, L.R.Sarani, West Bengal-700020 Pan No. :Aafcd 5214 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ca & Vidhi Ladia, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Pradip Kumar Mondal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/07/2024, Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2020-2021 On The Following Grounds :- 1.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Tpo Erred In Making A Downward Adjustment Of Rs.24,72,79,392/- In Respect Of The Transfer Value Of Power By The Captive Power Plant At Haldia, West Bengal. (B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Methodology Followed By The Assessee To Benchmark The Arm'S Length Value Of The Power Transferred By The Eligible Unit To The Non-Eligible Unit Fulfilled The Internal Cup Parameters & In That View Of The Matter The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Tpo Was Impermissible On The Given Facts & In Law. (C) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Manner In Which The Drp/Tpo Has Benchmarked

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, CA and VidhiFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Mondal, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80ISection 92C

that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the JAO erred in not granting credit for advance tax of Rs. 17,40,00,000/-, TDS of Rs.1,47,89,550/- and TCS of Rs. 1,93,442/- while computing the tax payable/refundable ... same. Ground No.3 is allowed. 16. The issue raised in ground No.4 is against the order of the AO in not granting credit for advance tax of Rs.17,40,00,000/-, TDS of Rs.1,47,89,550/- and TCS of Rs.1,93,442/- while computing the tax payable/refundable. 17. Similarly

Kalpana Subramaniam, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(1), Pune

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

ITA 514/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.514/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Subramaniam, V The Income Tax Officer, 19A, B/H Regene Park, Ganpati S Ward-13(1), Pune. Chowk, Lunkad Towers, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Aswps7131C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Akashay Surana (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 28.12.2024For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250oSection 271(1)(c)

perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not paid advance tax as stipulated u/sec.249(4)(b) r.w.s. 234B of the Act. However, it is observed that ld.CIT(A) has invoked sub-clause “b” of section ... No.514/PUN/2025 [A] (b) where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him: Provided that, in a case falling under clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf

Zenobia Phiroze Irani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2913/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2913/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2023-24 Zenobia Phiroze Irani, Income Tax Officer, New No.7, Muthiah Street, Non-Corporate, Teynampet, Ward-3(3), Chennai-600 086. Chennai [Pan: Aaapi1704R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT

Section 234CSection 234F

issues it is contesting in this appeal are regarding the levy of interest under section 234C of Rs.4,04,826/- for non-payment of advance tax as also the levy of penalty under section 234F of Rs.5000/- for ITA No.2913 /Chny/2024 belated filing of the return of income ... that the revenue authorities have inadvertently omitted to note that no such mistake was committed by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel informed that the advance tax of rupees Rs. 4,34,00,000/- was paid by it on different dates as against total liability of Rs.4,35,39,780/-. Thus

Shrikant Chandrakant Lokhande, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 2696/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Vijaykumar PawarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)

Where no return has been filed by the appellant for Not the assessment year, Not whether an amount equal applicable to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid 3.2. As per provisions of section ... where no return has been filed by the assessee, the asseessee has to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him otherwise appeal shall not be admitted. The provisions of section 249 (4) of the Act are reproduced as under - Section

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 452/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita-Tp No.451/Hyd/2022 & 452/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax Hyderabad Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aadcs4024Q] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Orders Dated 21.07.2022 & 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (“The Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. For The Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

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

Loss on sale of F/A 1,03,01,792 1,03,01,792 (iv) interest on short of 4,11,065 4,11,065 Advance tax (v) interest on delayed 6,039 6,039 TDS (vi) Provision For sales 24,37,666 24,37,666 commission (vii) Donation

Chandrakala Narala, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 2575/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit Tanna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 282ASection 69A

response from the assessee’s side and learned CIT(A) noted that as per Sl. No95 of Form 35, assessee has not paid any advance tax and appeal was not admitted. Page 4 of 5 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel ... lower authorities and submitted that the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee since the assessee did not pay advance tax and therefore CIT(A) has not rightly admitted the appeal. Various notices were issued by both the authorities below. This shows negligence on the part

DCIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 992/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Rs.6,21,484/- under Section 234A of the Act and Rs.17,37,64,891/- under Section 234C of the Act for deferred payment of advance tax. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the assessee’s submissions

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula

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

ITA 1093/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(3)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Skate Trades and Agencies Private Limited, Raichur Street Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1663/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaildy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Room No.535, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Churchgate ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

declaration, consequential relief is sought against Ext.P2 assessment order levying tax at the enhanced rate of 60% and surcharge @25% on the 'advance tax'. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition by a cryptic judgment relying on Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A.Wahab. (1990) 48 Taxman 362/182 ... Financial Year 2016- 2017; which is the year in which the subject seizures were occasioned. The proviso refers to various provisions where the advanced tax computed under the first proviso stands increased by a surcharge for the purpose of the Union. Section 115BBE is one of the provisions referred

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Best Agrolife Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4024/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

following grounds of appeal :- “1, The Ld. CIT(A) has erred for adjudicating the matter on allowing the TDS, TCS, self-assessment tax and advance tax credits without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer ITA No.4024/DEL/2024 or to CPC, Bengaluru, which is in contravention of provisions of Rule ... Rs.7,70,168/- claimed by the assessee in its ITR for relevant AY. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing credit of advance tax payment of Rs.22,64,26,400/- w.r.t. claim of the same by the assessee in its ITR for relevant

Kn Krishnamurthy, Mumbai vs. Mum-W-(432)(93), Bengaluru

ITA 5609/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) K.N. Krishnamurthy Ito 42(2)(3) I-15, Mahindra Park Mumbai. Narayan Nagar, Lbs Vs. Marg, Ghatkopar West Mumbai-400 086. Pan : Aaepk7294A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Krishamurthy

Section 234B

account to be accrued during the financial year at the beginning of the year i.e., on 1st April, 2022. Therefore, the presumption of paying Advance tax on the notional savings bank interest income to be accrued during the financial year is erroneous and defies logic. 2 K.N. Krishnamurthy A tax ... payer cannot be penalized under u/s 234B and 234C for failure to deposit Advance tax quarterly for interest income to be accrued from Savings Bank accounts. How can a tax payer determine the savings account interest income to be accrued in advance, since I (the Tax payer) am unaware

Aruna Singh, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 2387/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 156Section 208Section 210Section 234B(1)Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

ground that the assessee has not filed the return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by the assessee. The relevant observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below : “3.1 I have examined facts ... reproduced below- 9 Where no return has been filed by the appellant for the assessment year, whether an amount equal to the amount of advance tax as per section 249(4)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been paid Not applicable 3. 2. As per provisions of section

Shaju Raman Arangath, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shaju Raman Arangath Ito Ward 3(2) 502, Apollonia, Triveni Rani Mansion Laurel, Next To Rto Vs. 2Nd Floor Near Birla School Murbad Road Kalyan West Kalyan Maharashtra-421 301. Maharashtra-421301. Pan : Ammpa5973C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Mehta

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 270ASection 285B

dismissed the appeal of the appellant by stating that the appellant has not even filed return of income and not paid any advance tax relating to it and hence the appeal was not liable to be admitted and hence dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the confirming of penalty order