<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (8) TMI 744 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776556</link>
    <description>ITAT held that the assessee was not liable for interest under section 234B because the tax adjustment arose from a retrospective amendment to transfer-pricing provisions that could not have been foreseen when computing advance tax. Since the return was filed under the unamended law, the taxpayer could not be branded a defaulter for failure to pay advance tax; the CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest demand. Appeal allowed and interest charged under section 234B set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 13:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 744 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776556</link>
      <description>ITAT held that the assessee was not liable for interest under section 234B because the tax adjustment arose from a retrospective amendment to transfer-pricing provisions that could not have been foreseen when computing advance tax. Since the return was filed under the unamended law, the taxpayer could not be branded a defaulter for failure to pay advance tax; the CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest demand. Appeal allowed and interest charged under section 234B set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>