9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus parking charges was brought to tax in Assessment Year 2000-01. On facts in quantum proceedings, it has been held by the Tribunal that the amount received on parking charges has nothing to do with the appellant's project and was assessable to tax in Assessment Year 2000-01. This has been accepted by the Appellant. If this be so, the Appellant was obliged to pay Advance tax and nonpayment of the same would carry with it the further burden on interest under Section 234B of the Act. This is so in view of Anjum Ghaswala (2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court) where it is held that payment of interest is mandatory and compensatory. - Decided against assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 332 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arking charges collected on the vacant land available with the Appellant and had nothing to do with any of the projects being executed by the Appellant. As the Appellant had not filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2000-01, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Consequent thereto, the income received from parking charges of ₹ 15.48 lakhs was assessed to tax for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 4. On appeal by the Appellant-Assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. This on the ground that the amount earned by exploiting vacant land is an amount rateable to the costs of the project and therefore, properly offered to tax in the Assessment Year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest for delayed payment of advance tax under Section 234B of the Act can arise in the absence of a finding that nonpayment of advance tax was mala fide. In support, he places reliance upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Prime Securities Ltd. v/s. ACIT 333 ITR 464 and particularly emphasizes fact that the CIT(A) had in quantum proceedings accepted the contention of the Appellant. 8. As against the above, Mr. Malhotra learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent supports the impugned order of the Tribunal including its observations that the decision of the Apex Court in Bokaro Steel Ltd., (supra) is inapplicable. 9. In the present facts, the Appellant had not originally filed its return of income and, therefore, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
