“interest u/s 234A”

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.74,82,360/- 7. Total income assessed u/s 147 at Rs.74,82,360/- credit for prepaid taxes given. Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D levied as per the computation brought out in the Income Tax Computation form which shall be deemed to be a part

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.74,82,360/- 7. Total income assessed u/s 147 at Rs.74,82,360/- credit for prepaid taxes given. Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D levied as per the computation brought out in the Income Tax Computation form which shall be deemed to be a part

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.74,82,360/- 7. Total income assessed u/s 147 at Rs.74,82,360/- credit for prepaid taxes given. Interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D levied as per the computation brought out in the Income Tax Computation form which shall be deemed to be a part

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

consideration while computing the total demand. Consequently, the demand so raised is wholly unjustified, ought to be deleted. 4. Ground no.4 – Levy of Interest u/s 234A of the Act 4.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in levying

Anil Monshi Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 20 (1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleanil Monshi Shah V. Acit – 20(1) 103, Sukh Castle, Bhandarkar Road Room No. 113, Piramal Chambers Matunga (E), Mumbai – 4000196 Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaacps9726P

based. ON LEVY OF INTEREST: 4.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete or modify

Shri. Amit Prakash Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT- CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Rs.1,39,431/-. In the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the tax liability was determined at Rs.8,55,510/-, which included interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee stated that he was working with a company named

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.

allowed for statistical purposes. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., 13. The Ground No. 36 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act. We find that the return of income has been filed in time u/s 139(1) of the Act in the instant ... case. Hence the ld. AO is directed not to charge any interest u/s 234A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 36 raised by the assessee is allowed. 14. The Ground No. 37 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. This

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.

allowed for statistical purposes. M/s. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., 13. The Ground No. 36 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act. We find that the return of income has been filed in time u/s 139(1) of the Act in the instant ... case. Hence the ld. AO is directed not to charge any interest u/s 234A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 36 raised by the assessee is allowed. 14. The Ground No. 37 raised by the assessee is challenging the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. This

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

business loss of the year against capital gains instead of income from other sources. 7. The Learned CITIA) erred in charging interest U/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the I.T.Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee is an individual and is having wholesale and retail trading business of imitation jewellery. The assessee

Paramjit Singh Seehra, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Paramjit Singh Seehra Vs Acit-10(3)(1), Mumbai C-17/403, Bakul Off, 2Nd Pokhran Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road, Vasant Vihar, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400 610 Pan : Aadps4447A Appellant Respondent

recorded by the investigation unit is not acceptable. 3. The Assessing Officer wrongly initiated penalty u/s 271(1(c) and also wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, B & C. 4. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax [A] erred in dismissing

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)

appeal. Accordingly, this ground is allowed with above direction. 037. Ground number 27 of the appeal is with respect to the charging of interest u/s 234A of the income tax act. Assessee submits that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 22/11/2011 whereas the due date ... filing of the return of income was 30/11/2011 and therefore no interest u/s 234A of the act should have been charged, as there is no delay in filing of return of income. Apparently, if the assessee has filed the return of income within the due date prescribed u/s

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)

appeal. Accordingly, this ground is allowed with above direction. 037. Ground number 27 of the appeal is with respect to the charging of interest u/s 234A of the income tax act. Assessee submits that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 22/11/2011 whereas the due date ... filing of the return of income was 30/11/2011 and therefore no interest u/s 234A of the act should have been charged, as there is no delay in filing of return of income. Apparently, if the assessee has filed the return of income within the due date prescribed u/s

M/S Stratergic Capital Corporation Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

made from the Bar and accordingly Ground No. 4 is hereby dismissed as not pressed. 6. The Ground raised challenging the chargeability of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is consequential in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 7. The Ground raised challenging the initiation