Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (6) TMI 1642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad ['Ld. CIT(A)'] dated 25.11.2024 which is arising out of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23 framed on 16.03.2023 by the DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of CPC levying surcharge of 37% as against....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 52,00,660/-. While computing the tax liability, the assessee has paid surcharge at the rate of 10%. In the intimation u/s 143(1), the CPC while processing the return levied the surcharge at the maximum rate of 37%. The assessee challenged the said action of CPC before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Special Bench....