“interest under section 234A”

Novell Inc, America vs. DCIT (It) Range 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us.

profits. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed. Ground No. 7 4. Ground No. 7 pertains to levy of interest under Section 234A of the Act. The contention of the Appellant is that the return was filed within the time prescribed and therefore, levy of interest ... Assessing Officer to verify whether Assessment Year 2014-15 the income tax return was filed within the prescribed time (original/extended), and thereafter, levy/compute interest under Section 234A of the Act, if any, as per law. Ground No. 7 is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 8 & 9 5. Ground

Ravech Floritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1) (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Ravechi Floritech Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Mangaldas Estate, 397, D.B. Marg, Naaz Cinema Compound, Grant Road (E), Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aabcr0378Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-18(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 31.10.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

without appreciating facts, submission and evidences in their proper perspective, is liable to be annulled. 6. The learned assessing officer erred in charging interest under section 234A, 2346, 234C and 234D of the Act. 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter and / or vary any of the grounds

Jyoti H. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2475/मुं/ 2015 ("न.व. 2009-10) Jyoti H. Mehta, 32, Madhuli, Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan:Abnpm-8233-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Astt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle -23.[Now Acit-Cc-4(1)] Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms. Mitali Gopani ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Damor(Cit-Dr)

direct accordingly. The ground No.3 of appeal is thus, partly allowed. 12. In ground No.4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has fairly conceded that this issue has been decided against

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

assessment order despite the fact that the learned AO has considered the same while determining total income in the assessment order. Levy of interest under section 234A amounting to 9,40,050/- 36. Erred in levying interest of Rs.9,40,050 under section 234A of the Act with appreciating

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

assessment order despite the fact that the learned AO has considered the same while determining total income in the assessment order. Levy of interest under section 234A amounting to 9,40,050/- 36. Erred in levying interest of Rs.9,40,050 under section 234A of the Act with appreciating

Joseph Mudaliar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 4 (3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

allowed for statistical purpose. 20. Ground No. 7, raised in assessee‟s appeal, insofar as it pertains to levy of interest under section 234A of the Act is concerned, we deem it appropriate to remand this aspect to the file of AO for de novo adjudication after necessary examination

Royal Canin India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre/Asst CIT-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

this stage is premature, hence, this ground is dismissed as such. 15. In ground No.7 of the appeal, assessee has assailed charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. Charging of interest under the aforesaid sections is mandatory and consequential, hence, ground No.7

Iftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaliftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Room No. 60, Prem Nagar, Behind Lucky Hotel, Sion Agra Road, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Bgsps0603N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-26(1)(5), C-1 Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging Rs.3,13,750 of interest under section 234A, 234B 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) erred

Mergermarket Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicate above

ground 3 the assessee has raised the following grievance:- Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 5 of 5 3. Incorrect levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned AO has erred in levying interest

Ishardas Aggarwal & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO - 17 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Ishardas Aggarwal & Vs. Ito – 17(2)(1) Sons 123B, 1St Floor, 39, Latif House, Sant Aayakar Bhavan, Tukaram Road, Iron New Marine Lines, Market, Mumbai – 40009 Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabf12423E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P.Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 56, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

erred in adding the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty

Juniper Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT.- CC- 2(4), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. It is pleaded that the learned AO be directed to delete the interest levied under section 234A and 234B

Dassault Systems Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Intl Tax) -2(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

return as per form 26AS. ITA No.: 431/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2018-19 Page 3 of 8 2.8. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act. 2.9. The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. Each of the above ground

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

appreciating that the same was incurred for business purposes of the Assessee and allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 27. erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without appreciating that the return of income was filed

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

appreciating that the same was incurred for business purposes of the Assessee and allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act 27. erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without appreciating that the return of income was filed

M/S. Ganpat Steel Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1) (3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Ganpat Steel Industries V. Income Tax Officer – 19(1)(3) Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk Office No. 12, Kolsawala Building Mumbai – 400 007 1St Floor, 67, Dr. M.G. Mahimutra Street Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aagfg3758B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department By : Shri Vaibhav Jain

whose statements are relied upon, is liable to be annulled. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 3 M/s. Ganpat Steel Industries 7. The appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter

Damco International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

No.1 and 2, hence, require no specific adjudication. 15. In grounds of appeal No.8, 9 and 10 the assessee has assailed charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, respectively. The charging of interest is mandatory and consequential, hence, grounds No.8 to 10 of the appeal