advance tax — 1,785 case laws

Ge Healthcare Finland Oy(Formerly Known As Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation -1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the two appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 310/KOL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 9Section 92Section 92C

assessee has contested charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act on the ground that it was not liable to pay advance tax. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Mitsubishi Corporation reported

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 320/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are

ITA 1176/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1175/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

234C shall not be applicable in computing tax liability. 12.1 The issue in dispute in this ground relates to the liability to pay advance tax and interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act, in case the income is held to be chargeable to tax u/s 115JB ... prevailing decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kwality Biscuits Ltd. (supra), was under the bonafide belief that, advance tax was not payable in respect of MAT u/s 115JB of the Act. 12.3 Heard both the parties. We note that on identical

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

M/S Jashan Finlease Ltd., Khanna vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 68Section 69

stated out of the total tax liability on the additional income of Rs. 75,00,000/-, he will deposit Rs. 15,00,000/- as advance tax before 31/03/2019 and the balance tax will be deposited before filing return of income alongwith interest subject to no penal action. Subsequently

The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., Kollam vs. The Dict, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 244A

following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate

Mariamma Joseph, Kottayamn vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is decided on the aforesaid terms

ITA 672/COCH/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmariamma Joseph Asst. Cit, Central Circle Hotel Floral Park Kottayam 686001 Gandhinagar Vs. Kottayam 686008 [Pan:Accpj9135F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 210Section 234Section 234BSection 234B(3)

relevant part, as it stood prior its amendment by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015, reads as under: Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax. 234B. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under ... section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one per cent

M/S. Finwizard Technology Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 15/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Sri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

value of the assets in the balance-sheet as reduced by any amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act and any amount shown in the balance-sheet ... apart towards depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over

Sonal Pralhad Patil, Pune vs. ITO, Jalna

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1253/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1253/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande

Section 147

coming from the Revenue side that the CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine for want of payment of amount of advance tax payable. Ms. Deshpande could 2 ITA.No.1253/PUN/2023 Sonal Pralhad Patil hardly dispute that neither the ld. NFAC has given any notice to this effect ... assessee nor there is any specific finding therein about payment of advance tax payable as per the provisions of the Act. There is not even a whisper as to how much is the advance tax payable from the assessee’s side. Faced with this situation, the assessee’s instant appeal

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Computation & Disclosure Standards (“ICDS”); excess claim of exemption of dividend income; large increase in unsecured loans during the year; large refund claimed out of advance tax. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act from time to time along ... Sampark Management Consultancy vs. Pr.CIT loans obtained by the firm from its partner; and iv) the assessee claimed refund against the excess advance tax deposited by it. 5.2 Accordingly, the Ld. AO did not draw any adverse inference on the aforesaid issues mentioned in CASS reasons; accepted the income returned

Villuri Varaha Venkata Srinu Rama Nageswara Rao(HUF), Anakapalle vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 305/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.305/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) V.V.V.Srinu Rama Nageswara Rao Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of (Huf) Income Tax Flat No.201, Nk Grand, 5Th Line Circle-1(1) Siemon Nagar, Kurmanapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaihv5758A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 3

built up area of 13,855 sq.ft towards it’s share in the consideration of the development agreement. The assessee paid advance tax of Rs.20,00,000/- on 15.03.2016 and Rs.9,00,000/- on 30.03.2016. The return of income was not filed initially due to reasons beyond the control ... I.T.A. No.305/Viz/2023, A.Y.2016-17 V.V.V.Srinu Rama Nageswara Rao, Anakapalle 234B and Rs.1,34,098/- u/s 234C of the Act. The AO did not consider the advance tax of Rs.20,00,000 paid by the assessee on 15.03.2016, Rs.9,00,000/- paid on 30.03.2016 and self assessment tax of Rs.22

Devraj Computers Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, It(OSD), Chennai

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

ITA 3274/CHNY/2018[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

these advances are in the nature of deposits given in the course of business such as telephone deposit, electricity deposit, earnest money deposit, advance taxes and duties etc. None of the related parties in respect of whom there are outstanding balances at the end of the relevant assessment year, appear

Devraj Computers Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, It(OSD), Chennai

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

ITA 3273/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3273 & 3274/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Devraj Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 42, Gee Gee Complex, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Range – 1, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aabcd1593P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 27.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Both The Assessment Years: Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Range-1, Chennai 34 Is Against The Facts Of The Case & Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 Made Arbitrary Additions Without The Right Application Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

these advances are in the nature of deposits given in the course of business such as telephone deposit, electricity deposit, earnest money deposit, advance taxes and duties etc. None of the related parties in respect of whom there are outstanding balances at the end of the relevant assessment year, appear