“advance tax”

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

also not disputed. As per the P & L account a on 31-03-2012, Krishna & Associates and M/s Ridh Sidhi Associates have paid advance taxes Rs.2,51,08,742/-Rs.5,02,17,484/-. each, aggregating t It is thus established that bot the AOPs had paid taxes at the maximum

Shri Go0Vinddas Govardhandas Daga, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

also not disputed. As per the P & L account a on 31-03-2012, Krishna & Associates and M/s Ridh Sidhi Associates have paid advance taxes Rs.2,51,08,742/-Rs.5,02,17,484/-. each, aggregating t It is thus established that bot the AOPs had paid taxes at the maximum

Xander Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 549/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2019-20)

have given judgements on similar issues, I would like to mention the limitation of this authority regarding examination and verification of TDS / TCS and advance taxes paid by an assessee. The assessing officers (CPC including) are guided by circulars and instructions issued from time to time by CBDT that

Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman, Madhubani vs. ITO, Ward - 6(1), Patna

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.374/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shiv Nandan Prasad Suman….....…..…………………....Appellant Laukaha, Madhubani, Bihar-847421. [Pan: Aitps3598Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna…....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Mayank Manvendra, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. The Assessment Order Was Framed In The Case Of The Assessee U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act As The Assessee Failed To File Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2013-14 Within The Prescribed Limit. The Assessing Officer Determined Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.20,24,948/- By Making Certain Additions In Respect Of Unexplained Investment Of Rs.1445000/- U/S 69 Of The Act, Salary Income Of Rs.576492/- & Interest Income Of Rs.3456/-.

where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee was liable to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax. He also stated that the assessee did not file application as per the proviso to section 249(4) seeking exemption from operation of provisions of section ... provisions of law and there was no actual tax liability as determined by the Assessing Officer. He also claimed that the assessee had no advance tax liability as alleged by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. He prayed before us that one more opportunity may be given to decide

Sri Picklu Paul, Karimganj vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Silchar, Silchar

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

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

assessee as undisclosed stock which was admitted as additional income representing unaccounted stock and accordingly the assessee paid Rs. 3,00,000/- as advance tax. The return of income was filed disclosing total income at Rs. 87,96,788/- including the additional income of Rs. 75,00,000/- as admitted

Sameer Manohar Fulari, Mapusa vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 201/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Sameer Manohar Fulari, Vs National Faceless Near Bank Of India,Keni Assessment . Waddo,Mapusa Bardez, Centre,Nfac,Delhi. Noth Goa-403507 . Goa. Pan .No. Aaopf3440P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

appeal is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine for non deposit of advance tax. I.T.A. No.: 451/PAT/2024 Rakesh Kumar Sharma, AY : 2015-16 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the advance ... income above which is chargeable to tax. Since there was no tax liability of the assessee hence, there was no question of paying any advance tax. He has submitted that the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer was the subject matter of the present appeal. That the same

Chanda Devi, Samastipur vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Samastipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.355/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chanda Devi……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Hemant Kumar Gupta, Kalyanpur, Samastipur, Bihar-848302. [Pan: Buopd4526K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur..….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In Business Of Cattle Feed. The Assessing Officer Noticed During The Assessment Proceedings That The Assessee Deposited Rs.1979000/- In His Bank Account During Demonetization Period & The Assessee Did Not File Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Within Due Date Prescribed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Requesting The Assessee To File Return. However, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Notice As Such

where no return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee was liable to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax. He also stated that the assessee did not file an application u/s 208 of the Act which prescribed conditions of payment of advance tax. Accordingly ... provisions of law and there was no actual tax liability as determined by the Assessing Officer. He also claimed that the assessee had no advance tax liability as alleged by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. He prayed before us that one more opportunity may be given to decide