9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RYANA HIGH COURT] . The assessee was entitled to have the cash seized adjusted against its advance tax dues. Whether the explanation to Section 132B was retrospective in operation has been answered in favour of the respondent by this judgment above. The Division Bench expressly held that the explanation is not retrospective in operation. Interest u/s 234C - shortfall in the installments of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivya Suri, Adv., and Mr Sachin Bhardwaj, Adv. JUDGMENT S. J. Vazifdar, ACJ (Oral) C.M. No. 27376-CII of 2014 We are inclined to condone the delay as ITA No. 30 of 2014 has first been filed which, by order dated 06.10.2014, was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal. ITA No. 425 of 2014 (O M) This is an appeal against the order of the Tribunal dismissing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITAT is justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A)-I, whereas Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2013, with effect from 01-06-2013 has clarified that the existing liability does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. (iii) Whether the Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ratio of the judgment of This Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT vs. Arun Kapoor, (2011) 234 ITR 351 (P H) . Question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 must be decided against the appellant in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 29.09.2014 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Sh. Sandeep Jain and others in ITA No. 261 of 2014. The respondent was entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
