“Section 184(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 184Section 184(5)7 judgments

SHREEJI DEVELOPERS,VADODARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), SURAT AT VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 952/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144Section 147Section 184(5)Section 263Section 28

learned PCIT has erred in fact and in law in invoking jurisdiction\nunder Section 263 of the Act to apply the provisions of Section 184(5),\neven though the reassessment was completed by the AO under Section\n144 without there being a complete failure on the part of the Appellant ... ncomply with the notices issued during the reassessment proceedings.\nWithout prejudice to the above,\nDisallowance under Section 184(5) of the Act:\n5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned PCIT has erred in fact and\nin law in disputing the allowability of interest paid to partners\namounting to Rs.19

M/S ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JABALPUR

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

ITA 177/JAB/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2005-06 M/S Asit Dixit, Kartik Hotel, Near Vs. The Ito, Naudra Bridge, Jabalpur, M.P. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur Pan:Ggkps4130P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.6.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.09.2024 Wherein The Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 254/147/144 Of The Income Tax Act By The Assessing Officer On 27.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under: - “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Case The Addition Made Is Patently Wrong & Unwarranted As The Ao Has Not Followed The Order Of Hon’Ble Itat Bench Jabalpur For Verification Of Capital Introduced Of Rs. 37,00,000/- By Late Santosh Kumar Jaiswal. Notice Issued By Cit(A) For Fixing The Case For Hearing Are Not Seen As All Are Received In The Spam Folder & Due To Which The Notices Sent Through Mail Were Not Seen By The Assessee & The Reply Before The Cit (A) Could Not Been Submitted & The Ex-Party Order Was Passed & Appeal Was Dismissed. It Is Requested Kindly Delete The Addition Made By Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Seth, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 184(5)Section 250Section 254

initial assessment was completed under section 144 and in the same, the status of the assessee was taken as a firm under section 184(5) and no deduction was allowed to the assessee by way of any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration paid by the firm

M/S. RUKMANI ENGINEERING WORKS, (NOW RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,,ODISHA vs. THE DY. CIT- CIRCLE- KORBA,, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee firm being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 81/RPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Rukmani Engineering Works (Now Rukmani Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) Mig-384, Svbp Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba (C.G.) Pan: Aaifr4667G

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 251Section 40

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

BAJAJ PROCESSING INDUSTRIES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 21(1)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1279/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mayur J. GosraniFor Respondent: Ms. Kaveeta Punit Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 184(5)Section 245Section 250(6)

well as Ld. AO erred in addition of Rs 1,50,000/- towards remuneration to partners by applying the provisions of Section 184(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering submission of the appellate during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. The order appeal against

SWASTIK CORPORATION,VAPI vs. PR. CIT 3, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.21/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Swastik Corporation The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Room No.301, 3Rd Floor, Palak A-305, Surya Co-Operative Vs. Housing Society Ltd., Plot Arcade, Pali Hill Shanti Nagar, Tithal No.61, Vapi-396195 Road,Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abtfs 1028 G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)Section 234A(1)Section 263Section 40

Ward-8 Vapi had not disallowed deduction of interest and remuneration paid to the partners in view of provision of Section 184(5) of the Act, as the assessment of firm has been finalized u/s 144 of the Act. However, the then AO has wrongly allowed the interest of Rs.11 ... Ward-8, Vapi had not disallowed deduction of interest and remuneration paid to the partners in view of provision of Section 184(5) of the Act, as the assessment of firm has been finalized u/s 144 of the Act. However, the then AO has wrongly allowed the interest of Rs.11

RAM NARAYAN CONTRACTOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 956/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 184Section 184(5)Section 185

Partner Capital and Salary to Partner is not automatic unless there is complete failure on the part of 'A' to co-operate. Section 184(5) does not come in to operation automatically when an assessment is made under section 144. And as such request that deduction for interest on capital ... cannot be allowed. For sake of convenience relevant portion of section 184 and section 185 of I.T. Act, 1961 are reproduced as under: Section 184(5) “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where, in respect of any assessment year, there is no the part

K B CONTRACTORS (PARTNERSHIP),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9224/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 9224/Del/2019, A.Y. 2011-12

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 184(5)Section 185Section 271Section 28Section 44A

184 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9224.Del.2019 M/s. K.B. Contractors (Partnership), New Delhi For sake of convenience, provisions of section 184(5) are reproduced as under: “ Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where, in respect of of any assessment year, there