Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.73 seconds)

Smt. Pritiben Bharatbhai Shah,, ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3),, ... on 27 December, 2022

3. Before coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the appeal is time-barred by 514 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating that the reason for delay in filing appeal was that at the time the order was received at the residence of the assessee on 12-08-2019, she was in Australia and reached India on 25-10-2019. Thereafter, there was spread of Covid-19 and hence for the above reasons, the assessee inadvertently missed the receipt of notice. Subsequently, as soon as the assessee found the impugned order I.T.A No. 22/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 3 Smt. Pritiben Bharatbai Shah vs. ITO under consideration, she forwarded the same to her tax consultant for taking necessary action. Accordingly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant facts, there was no deliberate intention for the delay in filing appeal against the penalty order and hence he prayed that the same may kindly be condoned. Looking to the instant facts, we observe that during the period under consideration when the notice was sent at the registered address of the assessee, she was stationed at Australia. Further, subsequently there was also spread of Covid-19 virus leading to nationwide lockdown. Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are hereby condoning the delay in filing appeal, in the interests of justice. The learned DR has also not objected to the delay in filing of appeal being condoned, looking to the instant facts. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Shiv Shipping And Logistics vs Income Tax Settlment Commission Addl. ... on 1 February, 2023

21. Applying the very analogy and ratio and as the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of Bharatbhai B. Shah (supra), the amount already paid by the petitioner at the time of filing of return shall need to be excluded at the time of levying of interest under Section 234A. On the additional amount paid by the petitioner, as that becomes the tax short paid, and therefore, on that additional amount for the entire period i.e. after the due date of filing of return till the date on which the return was filed, the Revenue shall be entitled to collect the interest under Section 234A.
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

M/S Shiv Shipping Services vs Income Tax Settlement Commission, ... on 1 February, 2023

21. Applying the very analogy and ratio and as the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of Bharatbhai B. Shah (supra), the amount already paid by the petitioner at the time of filing of return shall need to be excluded at the time of levying of interest under Section 234A. On the additional amount paid by the petitioner, as that becomes the tax short paid, the interest is leviable. In other words, on the additional amount paid in the shortly paid taxes for the entire period i.e. after the due date of filing of return till the date on which the return was filed, the Revenue shall be entitled to collect the interest under Section 234A.
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

M/S. Oriental Components Pvt Ltd, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 1 August, 2024

In these circumstances and facts on record we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) with the direction that a fresh hearing or being heard to be given to the Assessee on the issue of charging of Interest keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharatbhai B. Shah versus Income-Tax Officer: (2013) 355 ITR 373 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy (2002) 254 ITR 755 (Del.) 5 ITA No. 568/Mum/2024 Oriental Electrical Components Pvt. Ltd.,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Shiv Shipping Services vs Income Tax Settlement Commission, ... on 27 April, 2021

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) Heard Mr. B.S.Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Settlement Commission while considering the issue of interest has not properly interpreted the provisions of Section 234B(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and others rendered in Special Civil Application No.4939 of 2015 dated 14.06.2016 and in the case of Bharatbhai B Shah vs. Income Tax Officer and Others reported in (2013) 355 ITR 373 (Guj). Hence, notice returnable on 14.06.2021.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

M/S Shiv Shipping And Logistics vs Income Tax Settlment Commission Addl. ... on 27 April, 2021

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) Heard Mr. B.S.Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Settlement Commission while considering the issue of interest has not properly interpreted the provisions of Section 234B(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and others rendered in Special Civil Application No.4939 of 2015 dated 14.06.2016 and in the case of Bharatbhai B Shah vs. Income Tax Officer and Others reported in (2013) 355 ITR 373 (Guj). Hence, notice returnable on 14.06.2021.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document
1