Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

…in on identical facts, this issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the said decision is cited herein under for ease of reference: 8. We may notice that in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 148/391 ITR 33 (Guj.) the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider a similar issue. The assessee had made a belated claim during assessment of filing revised return. According to the Revenue, this would entitle the assessee for claim of interest to the extent of delay. Provisions of sub-rule (2) of Section 244A of the Act were sought to be p…

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

…in on identical facts, this issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The relevant extract of the said decision is cited herein under for ease of reference: 8. We may notice that in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 148/391 ITR 33 (Guj.) the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider a similar issue. The assessee had made a belated claim during assessment of filing revised return. According to the Revenue, this would entitle the assessee for claim of interest to the extent of delay. Provisions of sub-rule (2) of Section 244A of the Act were sought to be p…

VOLTAS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT RANGE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Voltas Limited Dy. Cit Range 8(3)(1) Voltas House-A, 4 Th Floor, Room No.615, 6 Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 033 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv2809D

…stances of the case, the CIT(A) and the AO erred in overlooking the ratio of judgements passed by the Hon'ble High Courts in the matter of Pr. CIT Vs State Bank of India [ITA No. 1218 of 2016 (Bombay High Court)] and Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. DCIT [(2017) 391 ITR 33 (Gujarat High Court)] dealing with the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 244A of the Act. 1.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of the AO without appreciating the fact that necessary satisfaction of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…orate arguments, that the delay in refund was not attributable to the assessee. The assessee had also made references to various judgments of Hon’ble Courts above, such as CIT vs South Indian Bank Ltd [(2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker)], Ajanta Mtg Ltd vs DCIT [(2017) 391 ITR 33 (Guj)], and ITO vs Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)]. It was thus clearly a seriously contended issue as to whether or not the assessee was responsible for delay in refund of tax, and, as such, whether interest under section 244A could have been declined to the assessee at all. None of these submissions, however, had any impact on the Assessing…

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.(AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC -1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

…orate arguments, that the delay in refund was not attributable to the assessee. The assessee had also made references to various judgments of Hon’ble Courts above, such as CIT vs South Indian Bank Ltd [(2012) 340 ITR 574 (Ker)], Ajanta Mtg Ltd vs DCIT [(2017) 391 ITR 33 (Guj)], and ITO vs Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)]. It was thus clearly a seriously contended issue as to whether or not the assessee was responsible for delay in refund of tax, and, as such, whether interest under section 244A could have been declined to the assessee at all. None of these submissions, however, had any impact on the Assessing…

ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LIMITED,WEST BENGAL vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR-1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 188/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2007-08) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen.Circle-1(4), 9Th Flor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Chaudhari सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ ई”, मुंबई "ी जी. एस. प"ू,अ"" एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं. 188/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2007-08) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 PAN: AAACE-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen.Circle-1(4), 9th Flor, Old CGO Building, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya Jayaram "ि…

H.U.F. OF HIS LATE HIGHNESS SIR J.M. SCINDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE -18(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us :-

…r in any manner delayed on accounts of the reasons attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal, was, therefore correct in allowing the interest to the assessee. 8. We may notice that in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 148/391 ITR 33 (Guj.) the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider a similar issue. The assessee had made a belated claim during assessment of filing revised return. According to the Revenue, this would entitle the assessee for claim of interest to the extent of delay. Provisions of sub-rule (2) of Section 244A of the Act were sought to be p…