“interest u/s 234B”

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

confirmed and the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5.7. In the grounds of appeal, with regard to charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, the appellant has taken the ground as under "That the Assessing Officer also erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C ... without appreciating that since the Appellant could not be held liable for the payment of advance tax for the amount under reference, no interest u/s 234B and 234C could be charged particularly for the reason that special rate of tax has been provided under the Act and in any case

Maxis Mobile Services Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

jurisdictional ground, we are not expressing our opinion on the merits of the case. 13. The ground no 3 pertains to interest u/s 234B and 234C which is consequential in nature. 14. The ground 4 pertains to initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The same is premature

Rockwell Collins, Inc., United States of America vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmarockwell Collins Vs. Dcit, Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, Circle-3(1)(1), 18, Loyang Lane, Delhi 508918, Singapore, Singapore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajcr7985R Rockwell Collins Inc, Vs. Dcit, 400, Collins Rd Ne, Circle-3(1)(1), Cedar Rapids, Ia 52498, Delhi United States Of America, Usa,52498 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajcr7883E

u/s 234A of the Act shall be leviable. The ld AO is directed to examine this fact and decide accordingly. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act would be consequential in nature. 14. Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s

Rockwell Collins Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmarockwell Collins Vs. Dcit, Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, Circle-3(1)(1), 18, Loyang Lane, Delhi 508918, Singapore, Singapore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajcr7985R Rockwell Collins Inc, Vs. Dcit, 400, Collins Rd Ne, Circle-3(1)(1), Cedar Rapids, Ia 52498, Delhi United States Of America, Usa,52498 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aajcr7883E

u/s 234A of the Act shall be leviable. The ld AO is directed to examine this fact and decide accordingly. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act would be consequential in nature. 14. Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee is challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-2`, Faridabad

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

interest u/s 234A of the Act in the sum of Rs.22,35,232/- was charged together with few modifications in calculation of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. According (old CPC, due dale of assessee for filing return of income u/s 139(1) would be 05.08.2013 being ... chargeability of interest u/s 234A of the Act in the sum of Rs.22,35,232/- in the instant case. The chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. The grounds raised by the assessee are disposed of in the above mentioned terms." 9. Respectfully following

Atul Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Atul Sharma 207, Lawyers Vs. Acit Chamber, Delhi High Court Circle – 61 (1) New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Pan No.Aarps6964J (Appellant) (Respondent)

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld A.O. in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak vs. DCIT Circle, Rohtak

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal No

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member)

Income Tax Act. iii) That consequent to ground no. 2 above, the AO as well as CIT(A) erred in charging the interest u/s. 234B of Rs. 60,36,746/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO has passed the assessment order u/s ... omission had resulted in short levy of tax of Rs. 2,28,05,480/- including education cess and interest u/s. 234B (36 months). Thus, an amount of Rs. 2,28,05,480/- (including interest) is required to be increased in overall tax effect. Since the aforementioned mistakes are apparent from

Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak vs. DCIT Circle, Rohtak

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal No

Income Tax Act. iii) That consequent to ground no. 2 above, the AO as well as CIT(A) erred in charging the interest u/s. 234B of Rs. 60,36,746/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO has passed the assessment order u/s ... omission had resulted in short levy of tax of Rs. 2,28,05,480/- including education cess and interest u/s. 234B (36 months). Thus, an amount of Rs. 2,28,05,480/- (including interest) is required to be increased in overall tax effect. Since the aforementioned mistakes are apparent from

Kumar Kanti Das, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 72(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, AO has erred on facts and in law in levying and charging interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The computation of the same is also incorrect and excessive. 11. That the AO erred on facts