“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

Bangalore Restaurant, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Bijapur

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

ITA 378/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N Uralla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69A

Appellant, hence, bad in law. 4. The Hon'ble NFAC's finding that there was an obligation on the Appellant to pay the advance tax is on a misinterpretation of Section 249(4) of the Act and erroneous. 5. The Hon'ble (NFAC) ought to have appreciated that the Firm ... demand of Rs.12.36 lakhs as the assessee has not filed return of income as well as the equal to the amount of advance tax, which was payable by the assessee. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee was not admitted by the NFAC, New Delhi. Page

Jainco Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5382/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Jainco Developers (P) Ltd, Vs. Acit, 8, New Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Circle-13(1), Marg, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcj6893J

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohtagi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 234ASection 234B

were seized. The assessee vide letter dated 11.04.2012 requested the Income Tax Department to adjust the fixed deposit receipts against the advance tax liability for AY 2012-13. Later, the assessee filed its return of income belatedly on 26.03.2013 within the time limit prescribed ... cannot be accepted. M/s. Jainco Developers (P) Ltd b. the assessee vide letter dated 11.04.2012 had sought adjustment of seized fixed deposits with the advance tax liability of the assessee and since the financial year itself had ended on 31.03.2012 and accordingly the advance tax obligation also ended

Vinayak Shivaji Kand, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 388/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the filing of appeal and challan for the same was uploaded with the appeal. Further, both the payments are reflecting in Form 26AS. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is erred in treating Rs.1,00,00,000/- as an unexplained investment u/s 69. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) is erred in treating Rs.6,00,000/- as an unexplained investment u/s 69. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250Section 69

under : “4. Since the appellant has not filed return of income as well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infructous and is, therefore, dismissed.” 3. Aggrieved ... 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: 6.5 Since in this case, we have verified that assessee had filed Return of Income on 30.04.2022 and had also paid self-assessment

Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Indore vs. ITO-3(4), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Kavita Sachdev, Income-Tax Officer, 112,Jairampur Colony, 3(4), बनाम/ Indore. Indore. Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan : Arcps6793D Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

applies, the amount of tax sought to be evaded shall be the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of notice under section 148.” Page ... evaded shall be determined by taking into consideration the amount of tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self- assessment tax paid before the issue of notice u/s 148. The case of the assessee

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/MUM/2023[2020-221]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2020-221

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Bhawan, M.K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd., 311, Mehta Bhawan, Shop No. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

this, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT (A) and the revenue is directed to treat the same as advance tax by the assessee and all the provisions relating to advance payment of tax will be applicable here. Based on above, Ground No. 3 raised ... Revenue is dismissed with additional direction to the AO to treat the same as advance tax by the assessee and all the provisions relating to advance payment of tax will be applicable. 9. Ground No. 4 pertains to the deletion of the addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd, Kurla West, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4344/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

allowed 5. On the given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements, Id. Assessing Officer erred in not granting the credit of TDS and advance tax and self assessment tax, 9 M/s. Pratibha Industries Ltd. appellant prays that credit of TDS and Advance tax and Self assessment tax is to be allowed

P. Surendran, Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

proof of payment of sales tax which aggregated a payment of sales tax amounting to Rs.2,14,89,344/- which included Rs.10 lacs advance tax payment on sales tax which was debited in the profit and loss account of the assessee. The ld. A.O. added the difference amount of Rs.27 ... along with the advance tax of Rs.10 lacs which according to the ld. A.O. was not related to the sales pertaining to the year under consideration and made an addition of Rs.37,66,203/-. 9. On the other hand, the ld. CIT(A) held that only invoices pertaining to Rs.21

Sondekoppa Sundarswamy Naganand, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 607/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

there would not be any liability of interest under section 234B and 234C when the entire tax liability was duly discharged through TDS and advance tax. 10. CIT (Appeals) be directed to consider the case on merits in View of the decisions cited in the preceding paragraphs & annul the demand

Joyo Plastics, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-24 (1)

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

ITA 4405/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar

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

tax deducted at source, any any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, any relief allowable

Pervez Khodayar Raisi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(2), Mumbai, Tardeo, Grant Road (W)

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

ITA 4369/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 246Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

unexplained income and further erred in levying tax thereon under section 115BBE of the Act Non-adjustment of cash found with advance tax liability d. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant ought to have been allowed the adjustment of cash found and seized during the course of search ... seizure action against advance tax liability for the year under consideration.” 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- 4. The appellant is an Individual and regularly assessed to income tax. The appellant was found by local police in possession of cash

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 642/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

date assessee on or before the due date prescribed and similarly he has and similarly he has not taken into consideration the advance tax paid not taken into consideration the advance tax paid by the assessee Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Marsh India Insurance Brokers ... verification of in accordance with law after verification of in accordance with law after verification of date of filing of return of income and advance tax payment return of income and advance tax payments made by the return of income and advance tax payment assessee. The ground No assessee

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jtdy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2471/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

Shri. Boregowda Rajanna, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 304/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 115BSection 144Section 234Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 4Section 69A

admitting an appeal", by applying the provision of section 249(4)(b). The said provision is not applicable in present case, the need of advance tax is not applicable when assessee income is below taxable limit. 5. The Ld. Hon'ble CIT(A) is not justified in passing order without ... appeal will not be admitted unless at the time of filing the appeal, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance taxes which was payable by him at the time of filing of appeal. Page 6 ITA No. 304/Bang/2024 4. The Ld.AR submitted that

Janakiram Dammalapati, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

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

ITA 228/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, contending that the assessee has neither paid the requisite amount of advance tax which was payable on or before filing the appeal u/s. 249(4)(b) of the Act nor the assessee has made any request ... exemption from payment of such advance tax in accordance with the proviso to section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Ld.CIT(A) are reproduced, as under: “… 2.8. As per section 249(4)(b) of the Act, the appeal shall not be admitted, unless the appellant

ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage and Infrastructure Corpn Limited, Tonk Road, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agrarwal ( C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 145Section 199Section 25

27.Mere fact that in the earlier year, the assessee had treated such income differently, or that in the year under consideration, initially had paid advance tax on such basis, to our mind, would not be conclusive of the nature of the income. What needed to be ascertained was whether ... Mere fact that in the earlier year, the assessee had treated such income differently, or that in the year under consideration, initially had paid advance tax on such basis, to our mind, would not be conclusive of the nature of the income. What needed to be ascertained was whether

Braham Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3495/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144BSection 147Section 194ASection 249(4)(b)Section 270ASection 3

merit of the case, dismissed the appeal in limine treating the same as unadmitted, on account of non-payment of an amount equal to advance tax. Aggrieved against this now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no proper opportunity ... represent its case and dismissed the appeal in limine, treating the same as unadmitted, for want of payment of an equal to advance tax. He prayed that in the interest of natural justice the matter may be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for decision afresh on merit

Kamaludeen, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 110/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Mr.Kamaludeen, Vs. Ito No.59, Denkanikotta Road, Ward-1, Opposite To R.C.Church, Hosur. Shanti Nagar(West), Hosur-635109. [Pan: Ajdpk0299D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

Page No.45 of the appeal memo. He referred to Column-18 and 3 I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2024 submits that the AO himself considered advance tax credit of Rs.50,000/- in making computation. The same was brought to the notice of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi through written submissions dated ... NFAC, Delhi did not consider the advance tax credit during the disposal of appeal. The ld.DR Shri P.Sajit Kumar did not dispute the same. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on the ground

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 45/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 115JSection 35D

Short-grant of deduction under section 10AA of the Act in the assessment order passed for the subject year 4. Short-grant of Advance Tax and Tax deducted at Source in the assessment order passed for the subject year The assessee filed the above grounds of appeal, which are argumentative ... assessee. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee. 7. Ground no. 11 to 12: Short grant of Advance tax and TDS belonging to amalgamated entities: 7.1 In this regard, Ld. CIT(A), in its order in para 8.5, directed Ld. AO to verify

ACIT, Central Circle -1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cognizant Technology Services Privae Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 150/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 115JSection 35D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Sandvik Coromant India Pvt Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1072/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1072/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dy.Commissioner Of Sandvik Coromant India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-8, Vs Ltd., Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection No.7/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sandvik Coromant India The Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Patakh – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Ita 1072/Pn/2023 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Co No.7/Pun/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] U/S.250 Of The Act, For A.Y.2018-19

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 43B

tax 85[, interest and fee], 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 Part