“Section 207(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 207Section 207(2)3 judgments

RAMA DAMU BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD-1, PANVEL

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

ITA 2109/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rama Damu Bhagat, V The Income Tax Officer, Room No.4, Yashoganga S Ward-1, Panvel. Chg, Tilak Road, Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Bicpb8875P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Ajinkya Vaishampayan(Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.09.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

Section 144Section 148Section 207(2)Section 207(2)(b)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 48

payment of advance tax. 3) The Ld. and Hon'ble CIT(A)-NAFC erred in not appreciating provisions of section 207(2) and did not appreciate the facts that: - a) The disputed income does not fall under the head Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession ... Ld.AR further submitted that Assessee was not liable to pay any Advance Tax during the year. Ld.AR invited our attention to Section 207(2)(b) of the Act. Ld.AR further submitted that the Actual Sale of the Land took place in next Assessment Year i.e. 2014-15 and Assessee

JACOB THOMAS,KOZHENCHERRY vs. ACIT, THIRUVALLA RANGE, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 132/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.10.2016 Declaring Income Of Rs. 37,97,390/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 207Section 207(2)Section 234BSection 234ESection 243BSection 37Section 37(1)

that since senior citizens are exempt from payment of advance tax, therefore no liability to pay advance tax in terms of provisions of section 207(2) of the Act. On due consideration of the above submissions, the AO held that since he is having income from business or profession, additions

GANESH CHHAGANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Preetam Kumar H. Turerao, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 207Section 207(2)(a)Section 234CSection 4

total income. In other words, tax can be collected on positive income and not on negative income. Therefore, income chargeable referred in section 207(2)(a) has limited interpretation and shall be limited to positive income and not to negative income. 2 Ganesh Chhaganlal Jain ... case of Hariprasad & Co. held that ‘income’ includes loss but that analogy cannot be extended to expression ‘any income chargeable’ as mentioned in section 207(2)(a) of the I.T. Act.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income