← All Phrases

“interest u/s 234B”

InterestSection 234BSection 234B1,217 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest u/s 234B is DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC (313 ITR 187), cited in 144 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest u/s 234B

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.

CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd.
247 ITR 209 · 2001 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Interest under sections 234A and 234B cannot be levied mechanically when there is a reasonable cause for delay in payment or response to notices.

27th Nov., 2001 and Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. Dy. CIT
72 ITD 415 · 2000 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

Interest under section 234B is not leviable if the entire income of the assessee is liable to tax deduction at source, irrespective of whether tax was actually deducted.

ACIT v. Hans Raj Gandhi
37 ITR 418 · Reported
14
citing judgments

An assessee is entitled to the adjustment of seized cash against their advance tax liability. Consequently, no interest under sections 234A or 234B can be charged if the department fails to respond to the assessee's request for such an adjustment.

MBG Commodities (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
163 ITD 130 · 2017 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Interest under section 234B needs to be recalculated, affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering judicial decisions.

CIT vs. Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. (2004) and CIT v. Reading and Bates Exploration Co.
278 ITR 47 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Interest under section 234 cannot be levied if the employer fails to deduct tax at source, as the employee should not be faulted for the employer's default.

Spice Infotainment v. Commissioner of Income
18 SCC 353 · 2020 · Reported
12
citing judgments

An assessment made in the name of a company that has been amalgamated and dissolved is null and void.

Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tar, (2011 SCC OnLine Del), CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd.
2014 SCC OnLine DEL 7678 · 2014 · Reported
11
citing judgments

The court does not interfere with impugned judgments previously passed by the High Court in cases dealing with various aspects of income tax law.

Judgments citing interest u/s 234B

Dr. P. Dayananda Pai, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 150/BANG/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year :2005-06 Dr. P Dayananda Pai, Vs. Dcit, 10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Circle – 2(2), Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 052. Pan : Abapp 4418 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.12.2019 Of Cit(A)-11, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2005-06. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Is Also Referred To As “Pdp” In This Order. He Is In The Business Of Real Estate For Over Four Decades. He Carried On Business Of Real Estate In His Individual Capacity. From Ay 95-96 He Transferred All The Rights In Properties Under Various Agreements To A Partnership Firm “M/S.P.Dayanand Pai”, Vide Deed Of Partnership Dated 1-4-1994. In This Firm Mr.P.Dayanand Pai & His Brother Mr.P.Satish & 9 Other Individuals Were Partners. Thereafter By A Deed Of Partnership Dated 9.6.2000 The Firm “M/S.P.Dayanada Pai” Merged Its Business With Another Partnership Firm “M/S.Canara Housing Development Company” (Hereinafter Page 2 Of 39

For Appellant: Shri. R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153A

Calcutta reversing the decision of the Special Bench in the case of M/s. G. M. Foods & Another in W.P. No.44 of 2015, interest u/s 234B has also to be charged on the income as disclosed in the application u/s 245C of the Act.” Page

Prashant Vijay Kale, Thane vs. CPC, Income Tax Dept., Bengaluru

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

ITA 2100/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm National Faceless Appeal Prashant Vijay Kale Center 47-403, Swastik Residency, Centralized Processing Near Muchhala College, Vs. Gb Road Kavesar, Center, Income Tax Thane, Mumbai-400 615 Department, Bengaluru (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Adapk8367M Assessee By : Mr. Rajan Vora, Adv Revenue By : Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nihar Rajan Samal, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 4(2)Section 6(1)Section 90

with respect to the charging of interest u/s 234A of ₹ 24,648 and ground number 5 with respect to the charging of the interest u/s 234B and 234C, ground number six is with respect to imposing a fee of ₹ 5000 u/s 234F of the act. We find that assessee ... delete the same. Ground number 4 of the appeal is allowed. 014. Ground number 5 is with respect to the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the act, which is consequential in nature, and therefore the learned assessing officer is directed to compute the same in accordance with

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

software expenses disallowed as capital expenditure in earlier years. 13. The learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-15(3)(1) erred in levying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act.” Additional Ground of Appeal “1. The Appellant submits that the liability incurred on account of Education Cess and Higher

Mr.Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

A.Y.2015-16 and assessed to tax in that year. 1,13,80,816/- 18. The Learned Appellate Commissioner erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B as consequential, even though the Appellant is not liable to pay the same. Mr. Rahil Mahesh Kumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore Page

Indian Institution of Banking and Finance (Formerly Known As the India Institute of Bankers), Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 6954/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhindian Institute Of Vs. Commissioner Of Income Banking & Finance Tax (Exemptions) (Formerly Known As The Indian Room No. 617, Piramal Institute Of Bankers) Chambers Lalbaug, Tower-I, Kohinoor City Mumbai - 400012 Commercial-Ii, 3Rd Floor, Kirol Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatt3309D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 4

assessee u/s. 10(22) is upheld, it is not necessary to adjudicate on this objection. The next objection is regarding the levy of interest u/s, 234B of the Act. The question of levy of interest u/s 234B does not arise since the assessee is held to be entitled for exemption

M/S. Nitesh Housing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1487/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 234B

Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled

M/S. G M Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -9(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1095/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S G.M. Fabrics P. Ltd. Dy. Cit Ground Floor, -9(3)(2) Dhana Singh Compound, Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Jb Nagar, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 058 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach 2821 F

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)Section 234B

order of jurisdictional ITAT. 5. BECAUSE, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in failing to adjudicate the erroneous calculation of interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs. 71,28,911/-.” 03. Brief fact of the case shows that assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business

Anand Sweets & Savouries, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 241/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rama Nathan R, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250Section 40

same is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 4. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The Interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 5. In view of the above and on the grounds to be adduced

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

appeal: 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of Rs. 92,02,864/- and Rs. 11,14,103/- respectively (considering that credit for prepaid taxes would be given in the order ... paying self-assessment tax of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- after adjusting TDS of Rs. 2,61,54,656/- without paying interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. We also note that the first appellate authority upheld the order of the assessing officer by holding that the demerged company

Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2127/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vmware Software India The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Kalyani Magnum Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Block-I, 3Rd Floor 165/2 Doraisanipalya, Iim Post Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv4573E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit -Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Issues Raised In The Appeal Are As Follows:- (I) Validity Of The Impugned Final Assessment Order; (Ii) Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment Of Rs.26,85,43,457 Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Contrct Software Development & Information Technology Enabled Services To The Assessee’S Associated Enterprises (Aes); (Iii) Addition Of Rs.7,62,39,388 Being The Alleged Suppressed Income Of The Assessee; & 2 It(Tp)A No.2127/Bang/2017. M/S.Vmware Software India Private Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.T.Suryanaranayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

stated that the assessee has received demand from CPC on 15.03.2017 (the demand refers to the assessment order dated 13.03.2017) and interest u/s 234B of the I.T.Act was computed upto 31.03.2017. In support of the submission, the learned AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Maharaja Shopping Complex

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 179/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 40

Balance payable 2,95,54,26,860 5,77,86,364 Less: Deduction u/s 90 Balance payable 2,89,76,40,496 Add: Interest u/s 234B from 01.04.2008 to 1,59,37,02,273 29.10.2012 (55 Months) on 289,76,37,913 IT(TP)A No.179 /Bang/2022 IBM India

Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited, Ramanagara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 188/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli , CIT (DR)
Section 92C

make any unique contribution to the transaction, hence PSM in this case cannot be applied. 7. Ground No.18 is with regard to interest u/s 234B, which is consequential in nature and does not require any adjudication. 8. Ground No.19 is with regard to penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 270A

M/S. Poorn Mercantile Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. WD 4(3) (1)/ AO NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ward 4(3)(1) Poorn Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 304, Orchid, Mantri Park, Film Ao Nfac City Road, Goregaon (E) New Delhi Vs. Mumbai-400063 Delhi-110001 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aafcp8314E Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68

principles of natural justice. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A0 has erred in levying the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the IT which was wholly wrong, and against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made there under

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 602/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.602/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. (Earlier Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Circle – 7(1)(1), Centre Private Limited), Bengaluru. No.81 & 82, Tesco H S C, Epip Area, White Field, Bengaluru-560 066. Pan : Aabct 8915 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

Penalty (e) Levy of interest u/s 234C Accordingly, all these grounds are dismissed as Not Pressed. Ground No.27 relates to levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D. Since it is consequential in nature, it does not require specific adjudication. 3. Remaining grounds give rise to the following issues:- (a) Transfer

M/S. Intgreon Managed Solutions (India)P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Cy /CIT/Asstt./ITO-National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 1023/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2015-16
Section 147Section 234B

difference between the turnover reported in Service tax returns and books of account. (b) Claim for deduction of Education cess. (c) Charging of interest u/s 234B in excess. 4. The assessee herein is a subsidiary of M/s Integreon Managed Solutions (Mauritius) Ltd. It provides low end back officer support services ... education cess with retrospective effect. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground of the assessee. 13. The next ground relates to the charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential. In any case, we restore this issue also to the file of the AO to examine

M/S. Shell Information Technology International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT–DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2(24)Section 234B

raised in assessee‟s appeal, is allowed for statistical purpose. M/s. Shell Information Technology International B.V. ITA No.1245/Mum./2021 14. The levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. Accordingly, ground no.9 raised in assessee‟s appeal, is allowed for statistical purpose. 15. Ground no.1

M/S. Iqvia Ag (Previously Known As 'Ims Ag', Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1203/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee. As a result, ground nos. 1(1) to 1(4), raised in assessee‟s appeal are allowed. 12. The levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised in assessee‟s appeal, is allowed for statistical purpose. 13. In the result, appeal

Bhuvaneshwar Mohan Hamir Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-26(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2042/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhuvneshwar Mohan Vs. Ito – Ward 26(1)(2) Hamir Chand Jain 6Th Floor, Kautilya 202, Abhinandan Bhavan, Kbc, Bandra Swami Co-Op Hsg (E), Mumbai – 400051. Sec 21, Swami Vallabhdas Road, Sion (W), Mumbai – 400022 Pan/Gir No. : Aahpj7718H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Love Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfsc), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 54

erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer passed u/s. 154 of the Act levying interest u/s. 234B of the Act of Rs. 60,98,217/- without appreciating the facts that the tax demand was paid prior to passing of rectification order u/s. 154 dated 4/2/2020 , therefore levy of interest ... date of passing order u/s. 154 of the Act is bad in law. 2. The AO erred in charging interest u/s. 234B of the Act from 1st day of A. Y till passing the order u/s 154 dated 14.02.2020 on the total amount determined without taking into consideration the payments

Shri Manish Manila Gosar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am Shri Manish Manila Gosar Huf Ito-26(2)(2) N. M. Associates, 1, Tarlika, Mumbai-400 051 Ground Floor, 216, Vs. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 2740 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nitin Furia Respondent By : Ms. Usha Shrote Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitin FuriaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Shrote
Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

addition made to such returned income of Rs.18,16,480 be deleted and income be assessed at Rs.3,05, 620. 3) Levy of Interest u/s 234B: a. The ld. A.O. erred in levying interest u/s 234B of Rs.1,32,012/- without giving an opportunity of hearing and without passing

M/S Intuit India Products Development Centre Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2501/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 40

previous year reversal in current year claimed as a deduction u/s 40(a) of the Act (ground No.2) 3. Excess levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act (ground No.3) For ITA No.2576/Bang/2017 assessee raised the following issues - 1. Disallowance of year-end provisions of previous year reversal in current