ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

199 ITR 14 (SC), the Hon’ble Court held that cessation of liability for the purpose of section 41(1) means irrevocable cessation so that there is no possibility of the liability being revived in future. If there is such a possibility, then the cessation is not complete and section 41 (1) is not attracted. In the case

RAMESH KESHRI,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD W2(3), RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryramesh Keshri, I.T.O., Near Suzuki Showroom, Piska More, Ward 2(3), Vs. Ranchi-834005 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aftpk 1039 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

199/- @ 36%, less Rs. 1,68,850/- (profit already shown by the assessee as per Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961) which comes to Rs. 34,83,349/-, this is the total addition made by the Assessing Officer for which the tax effect is Rs. 13,67,270/-. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that

JAMIPOL LTD,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee being ITA Nos

section 234C of the Act. 35. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the record, we find that the interest u/s. 234B/C of the Act is to be charged on declared returned income and not on assessed income as per decision of the of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Ajay Prakash Verma