← All Phrases

“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

ACIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S. Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

company, entire tax was to be deducted at source on payments made by payer to it and there was no question of payment of advance tax by Appellant.  Notwithstanding above, the learned AO has erred in computing interest under section 234B amounting to INR 24,93,810 being consequential

M/S.Nds Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 364/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Synamedia Ltd. [Formerly Known As ‘Nds Limited’], The Assistant C/O. M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Block 9A & 9B, Pritech Park, International Survey No. 51-64/4, Taxation, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 1(2), Bellandur Village, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aabcn2524L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Dilip, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 16-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-12-2021

For Appellant: Shri
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

appellant were liable to be subjected to withholding tax provisions of the Act and accordingly, there was no requirement for the Appellant to pay advance tax in respect of such receipts. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant ... entire income that arises to them and the payment them is subject to deduction of tax at source there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee, accordingly, no interest under section 234B could be levied upon assessee. Following the said ration, we direct that there shall

Oona Singh, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Noida

ITA 1100/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

become eligible for getting admitted it would be a mandatory statutory requirement on the part of the assessee to deposit equal amount of the advance tax payable by the assessee. According to him, the assessee has not paid any advance tax in terms of provisions of sections ... eligible for getting admitted it would be a mandatory statutory requirement on the part of the appellant to deposit an amount equal to the advance tax payable by appellant.” 6. Thereafter, he written his comments on various sections and admissibility of the appeal in terms of scope of section

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

Assessee's brought forward MAT credit. Also, the AO did not grant TDS credit of Rs.7,546/-. The AO did not grant credit of advance tax of Rs.57,12,093/- that was claimed by the Assessee in its return of income while computing its income chargeable to tax ... claims were found to be correct, no relief whatsoever was granted to the Assessee on these issues in the final assessment order. Further, the advance tax claim was restricted to 52,12,093 as against credit of Rs. 57,12,093 claimed by the Assessee in the return of income

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

Assessee's brought forward MAT credit. Also, the AO did not grant TDS credit of Rs.7,546/-. The AO did not grant credit of advance tax of Rs.57,12,093/- that was claimed by the Assessee in its return of income while computing its income chargeable to tax ... claims were found to be correct, no relief whatsoever was granted to the Assessee on these issues in the final assessment order. Further, the advance tax claim was restricted to 52,12,093 as against credit of Rs. 57,12,093 claimed by the Assessee in the return of income

ACIT, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 09

ITA 5723/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

Section 14ASection 44

Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of chargeability of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the ct on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/ 115JB of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid decision has no impact on the issue involved

Cane Development Council Rohana Kalan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2616/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234A

charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out. 1 l. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify

Santi Ranjan Biswas, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 31(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3745/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Santi Ranjan Biswas, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Dev Raj Sharma, Adv. Ward-31(3), Ta-327, 2Nd Floor, Tughlakabad Extn., New Delhi Main Okhla Road, New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arepb3558M Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 234CSection 44A

books of account as provided for under section 44AA in respect of business covered under the presumptive taxation scheme of section 44AD. Payment of advance tax in respect of income from business is also covered under section 44AD. It mandates that any person opting for the presumptive taxation scheme under ... section 44AD is liable to pay whole amount of advance tax on or before 15thMarch of the previous year. If he fails to pay the advance tax by 15th March of previous year, he shall be liable to pay interest as per section 234C. Provisions to be applied

Bimla Devi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-50(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6992/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Raja Ram Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.A. Manu, Sr. DR
Section 140Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)

cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be deleted. 6. On the issue of interest on refund on self assessment tax and advance tax u/s 244A, from the perusal of the records and written submissions filed by the Ld. Counsel, the facts in brief 3 are that ... which has not considered the tax paid u/s 140-A of the Income Tax Act. Thus the Income Tax Software considered the payment of Advance Tax and TDS for the purpose of interest u/s 244A(1)(a). The Income Tax officer has not passed the order in respect of interest

Addlcit, New Delhi vs. M/S Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5166/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas
Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

arising out of an order dated 26/9/1978. The about demand was paid by the assessee on 20/11/1978 and considered as a deposit or advance tax recoverable from sales tax authorities challenging the same before the higher tax authorities. The disposal of the grievance of the assessee was made

Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5147/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Mmtc Limited, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core: 1, Scope Complex – 7, Special Range : 6, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E & Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, Special Range : 6, Core: 1, Scope Complex – New Delhi. 7, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas
Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 80G

arising out of an order dated 26/9/1978. The about demand was paid by the assessee on 20/11/1978 and considered as a deposit or advance tax recoverable from sales tax authorities challenging the same before the higher tax authorities. The disposal of the grievance of the assessee was made

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 09

ITA 5834/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaact0627R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ca & Shri Pulkit Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th June, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.25,85,81,755/- Made By The Ao U/S 14A Of The I.T. Act.” 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Public Sector Undertaking Of Government Of India & Is In The Business Of Non-Life Insurance. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Under Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act At A Loss Of Rs.186,97,30,289/- & Book Profit U/S 115Jb I.E., Mat Scheme Of Rs.565,63,58,876/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Claimed The Following Income As Exempt:- S. No. Particulars Amount ( □) 1. Interest On Tax Free Public Sector Bonds Exempt Under 4,59,58,525/- Section 10 (15) (Iv) (H) Of The Act 2,04,22,38,227/- 2. Dividend Exempt U/S 10(34) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Total 2,08,81,96,752/-

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA &For Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 44

Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of chargeability of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the ct on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/ 115JB of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid decision has no impact on the issue involved

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH. B.R.R

M/S. Lanco Infratech Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/DEL/2017[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR
Section 153Section 201Section 201(1)Section 211Section 220(2)

assessee cannot be held to be responsible. We are also guided by the circular of CBDT No. 1197 with regard to the Section 211, advance tax where in in case of bank holiday , the amounts were allowed to be paid on the next day of the due date without interest

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3596/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 211Section 234B

Delhi dated 28.02.2018 and 28.03.2018. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2. As per the revenue, the assessee has paid advance tax on 18th September, 18th December and 17th March whereas the due date for payment of advance tax was 15th September and 15th ITA No. 3594, 3595 & 3596/Del/2018 2 Kangra ... operative Bank Ltd. March. Accordingly, the revenue charged interest u/s 234B and 234C for default in payment of advance tax. 3. The assessee contended that the amounts have been indeed paid on 15th September, 14th December and 14th March. The assessee has submitted certificate from the Punjab National Bank that

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3595/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 211Section 234B

Delhi dated 28.02.2018 and 28.03.2018. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2. As per the revenue, the assessee has paid advance tax on 18th September, 18th December and 17th March whereas the due date for payment of advance tax was 15th September and 15th ITA No. 3594, 3595 & 3596/Del/2018 2 Kangra ... operative Bank Ltd. March. Accordingly, the revenue charged interest u/s 234B and 234C for default in payment of advance tax. 3. The assessee contended that the amounts have been indeed paid on 15th September, 14th December and 14th March. The assessee has submitted certificate from the Punjab National Bank that

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3594/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 211Section 234B

Delhi dated 28.02.2018 and 28.03.2018. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2. As per the revenue, the assessee has paid advance tax on 18th September, 18th December and 17th March whereas the due date for payment of advance tax was 15th September and 15th ITA No. 3594, 3595 & 3596/Del/2018 2 Kangra ... operative Bank Ltd. March. Accordingly, the revenue charged interest u/s 234B and 234C for default in payment of advance tax. 3. The assessee contended that the amounts have been indeed paid on 15th September, 14th December and 14th March. The assessee has submitted certificate from the Punjab National Bank that

Brash Steels Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 6181/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Brash Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Near Ward-1(2), Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121002 Pan-Aafcb0204R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 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

Maneeta, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7036/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 156Section 208Section 234A

file income tax return u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Accordingly, the appellant was also not liable to pay advance tax u/s 208/210 of the Act. Therefore, the interest imposed by the A.O. is not valid and void ab-initio. The interest imposed should