← All Phrases

“interest under section 234B”

InterestSection 234BSection 234B1,475 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest under section 234B is Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (328 ITR 81), cited in 1,183 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest under section 234B

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
252 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court
452
citing judgments

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

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.

Karanvir Singh Gossal v. CIT
349 ITR 692 · 2012 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

The Supreme Court's decision establishes principles or grounds for seeking a waiver of mandatory interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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.

80P(2)(d) of the Act. In Kaliandas Udyag Bhavan Premises Co-op Society Ltd. v. ITO
94 Taxmann.com 15 · 2018 · ITAT
130
citing judgments

A co-operative society, even if it is a co-operative bank whose general deduction under Section 80P is restricted by Section 80P(4), can still claim a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income derived from its investments held with another co-operative society, as it retains its identity as a co-operative society.

Judgments citing interest under section 234B

Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited(Succesor in Interest to Thomsan Reuters International Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 3127/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Asawari KadamFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 220Section 234BSection 234CSection 92C

ITA.No.3127/Mum/2019 M/s Thomson Reuters International Services Pvt.Ltd.. 4. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in consequently levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 5. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in consequently levying interest under section 234C of the Act. 6. That the learned Assessing Officer

Neeta Vijay Udani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 948/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh M. Choksi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

raised in assessee‟s appeal are partly allowed. 12. Ground No. 5 raised in assessee‟s appeal is pertaining to levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Accordingly, ground No. 5 raised in assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, RG- 7 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Rs.5,42,637 17. disallowing miscellaneous expenses of Rs 5,42,637 by treating the same as capital in nature; Levy of interest under section 234B 18. levying interest of Rs.9,27,675 under section 234B of the Act; Levy of interest under section 234D. 19. levying interest of Rs.1 ... appeal nos.16 and 17 of the assessee company are allowed. 15. Grounds of appeal Nos.18 to 21 are with respect to levy of interest under section 234B 234D, 244A and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which are consequential in nature, needs no adjudication

Welspun Steel Ltd. (Successor in Interest to Welspun Energy Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2786/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

present appeal, the Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee is dismissed. 33. Ground No. 3 pertaining to levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act is disposed of as being consequential, ITA. No. 3176 , 2784- 2786 & 2903/ Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 34. Ground

Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 520/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 26 & 27, The Deputy Bandaramanahalli Commissioner Of Village, Income Tax, Anneshwara Panchayat, Central Circle – 2 (2), Kasaba Hobli, Vs. Bangalore. Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 110. Pan: Aadcc1248A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 12/04/2022 By The Ld.Dcit, Central Circle – 2(2), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, M/S. Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 253Section 92CSection 92D

granted credit for brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation for the year under consideration. 4. Levy of consequential interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act Page 4 of 19 IT(TP)A No. 520/Bang/2022 4.1 The Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234D

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO /DRP erred in levying interest under section 234B amounting to INR 7,41,09,878/- and 234D of the Act amounting to INR 33,19,969/-. (corresponding to revised ground no. 11 & original ground

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO /DRP erred in levying interest under section 234B amounting to INR 7,41,09,878/- and 234D of the Act amounting to INR 33,19,969/-. (corresponding to revised ground no. 11 & original ground

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia & Shri MihirFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

erred in not making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the appellant vis-à-vis the comparable companies, Interest under Section 234B: 14. erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act, Interest under Section 234C: 15. erred in levying interest under Section 234C ... erroneously levying interest of INR 6,27,750 under section 234A of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act, Interest under Section 234B of the Act: ITA Nos. 2067/M/2017 & 7398/M/18 Polycom Technology (R&D) Center P. Ltd.; A.Y. 12-13 12. erred in levying interest

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

Accordingly, the aforesaid grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 28. Ground No. 13 raised in assessee’s appeal is pertaining to levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Thus, ground No. 13, is allowed for statistical purpose. 29. In this appeal

M/S. Goodwill Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 497/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2019-20
For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Apex Court in the case of Karanvir singh 349 ITR 692, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to Interest under section 234B of the Income Tax act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant contends that the levy of interest under section 234B

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1382/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvan Oord Dredging & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Marine Contractors Bv Income-Tax (International 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Taxation)-4(3)(1) Plaza, 166 Cst Road, 16Th Floor, Air India Kalina, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400098 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaach3500M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: K.C. Kanojiya
Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

learned AO: 29. erred in levying surcharge and education cess on the income chargeable to tax under India- Netherlands DTAA; Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO: 30. erred in levying interest

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 206/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha

therefore have to be credited with a risk premium on this account. OTHER GROUND 15. The lower authorities have erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,18,94,900/-. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest under section 234B ... leviable, being consequential in nature. The Appellant denies its liability to pay interest under section 234B. Page 5 of 30 IT(TP)A No. 206/Bang/2021 The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds/ sub-grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave

Abbasbhai Fidahusein Bhartoo, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 237/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69C

Rs.7,91,289/- is not at all justified and the same may be deleted. 5. The appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. Therefore, the same are not leviable.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand

Global Hospitality Licensing Company Sarl, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7736/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Paras Salva a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 9

time and levy interest under section 234A of the Act, in case of delay, in accordance with law. Further, as regards levy of interest under section 234B of the Act, it was submitted that taxes were fully withheld at source and therefore levy of interest under section 234B ... does not arise. In any case, no interest under section 234B of the Act is leviable, for the year under consideration the present case, in view of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in DIT v. Mitsubishi Corporation, [2021] 438 ITR Global Hospitality Licensing Company SARL ITA no.7736/Mum./2014

M/S. Mobily Infotech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

case and law applicable, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should be deleted in its entirety. 4.0 Grounds relating to levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C 4.1 The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C amounting ... respectively. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234B and 234C is not leviable. The assessee denies its liability to pay interest.” 7. Ground No.1 is general and Ground No.4 is consequential. These grounds do not warrant a separate adjudication. Ground

M/S. Hical Infra Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range- 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K. Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

case and law applicable, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) should be deleted in its entirety. 4.0 Grounds relating to levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C 4.1 The learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C amounting ... respectively. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, interest under section 234B and 234C is not leviable. The assessee denies its liability to pay interest.” 7. Ground No.1 is general and Ground No.4 is consequential. These grounds do not warrant a separate adjudication. Ground

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

directed to provide the tax credit of Rs. 1,94,003 and to re-compute its total liability accordingly Re.: Levy of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961: 1. The AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Income ... appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject, no interest under section 234B is leviable and the stand taken by the AO in this regard is misconceived, incorrect, erroneous and illegal. 3. The appellant submits that the AO be directed

Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 288/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sandisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Survey No. 143/1, Amani Bellandur Khane Village, The Joint Prestige Excelsior, Commissioner Of Prestige Tech Park, Income-Tax Marathalli – Sarjapur Outer (Osd), Ring Road, Circle 6 (1)(1), Vs. Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore. Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 103. Pan: Aaics9204M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi On 30.04.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA
Section 92C(3)Section 92D

erred in not granting credit for the dividend distribution taxes and levying interest, while computing the taxes in the final assessment order. 20. Interest under section 234B of the Act 20.1. The NeAC has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B

M/S. Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Respondent: Shri Nageshwar Rao
Section 133(6)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

2043/Mum/2016 (Mum-ITAT) 6. On the facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 6.1. The Ld. DRP erred in holding that it is empowered to deal only in variations in the proposed income ... consequential to ground for hereinabove. 7. Ground No.6-7 is consequential in nature as it is in respect of levy of interest under section 234B and penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the act, accordingly, do not require any adjudication. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Anurag Chandra, Noida vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer SinghFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 143(3)

appreciate that Appellant duly discharged his liabilities the actual income/loss foreign exchange and therefore required deposit any advance Therefore, Appellant liable any interest under Section 234B the Act. 10 ITA.NO. 2407/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2016-17) Shri Anurag Chandra 9. The learned Ld.CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer failed to appreciate