“interest u/s 234B”

Mahendra Mamtora, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(2)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhrii T A. No. 1119/Mum/2024 (A.Y.2011-12)

very much excessive. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Authorities below have erred in levying the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the I T which was wholly wrong, and against the provisions of Income Tax At, 1961 and rules made thereunder

Godrej Projects Development Ltd. (Into Which Godrej Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Has Been Amalgamated), Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 01/Mum/2024 is dismissed

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

when the press release of the Finance Ministry propagating the deferral was released. Hence the jurisdictional Assessment Officer is directed to calculate the interest u/s 234B from the month of July 2016 till the date of payment of self assessment tax and levy accordingly.” 6. We heard the rival submission

Tata Chemicals Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

where the AO himself agreed that there is no income which has escaped assessment, accordingly the proceedings needed to be dropped. 2. Interest u/s 234B: The AO erred in enhancing interest u/s 234B of the Act for the period starting from date of passing order us/ 143(3) till ... there is no variation from the original assessment order and same income has been accepted, then there is no question of levying of interest u/s .234B for three years till the date of re-assessment order. However, the ld. CIT(A) not only dismissed the assessee’s objection u/s.148

Shaily Prince Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee Shri Yogesh Popatlal Thakkar in ITA No

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "G", MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

M/S Gujarat Realtores, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

erred in law and on facts by levying the (A) has erred in law and on facts by levying the interest u/s 234B of the act. interest u/s 234B of the act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated facts of the case ... erred in law and on facts by The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by charging interest u/s 234B of the A interest u/s 234B of the Act. 8. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also

M/S Gujarat Realtores, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

erred in law and on facts by levying the (A) has erred in law and on facts by levying the interest u/s 234B of the act. interest u/s 234B of the act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated facts of the case ... erred in law and on facts by The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by charging interest u/s 234B of the A interest u/s 234B of the Act. 8. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also

M/S. Gujarat Realtors (Firm), Bhayander vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal for assessment year 2009

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Ita Nos. 3523 To 3525/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13, 2013-14 M/S Gujarat Realtors, Dy. Cit Central Circle-1, Ground Floor, Samriddhi, Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Ashar Annapurna Estate, Indralok, Vs. It Park, Wagle Industrial Godhbunder Link Road, Thane, Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Bhayander, 401105. Pan No. Aahfg 0051 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024

erred in law and on facts by levying the (A) has erred in law and on facts by levying the interest u/s 234B of the act. interest u/s 234B of the act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated facts of the case ... erred in law and on facts by The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by charging interest u/s 234B of the A interest u/s 234B of the Act. 8. In the instant assessment year also the assessee has raised In the instant assessment year also