CIT v. Needle Industries Private Limited

233 ITR 370High Court1998#13845 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 116Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 156Section 186Section 206CB

Judgments citing CIT v. Needle Industries Private Limited

DINESH CHAND JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 240Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

…the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 438. Besides this, it referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Needle Industries P. Ltd. 233 ITR 370 and its own judgment in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors (2006) 2 SCC 508. It also quoted from the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. HEG Limited (2010) 189 taxman 335 (SC) and Universal Cables Limited vs. CIT (2020) 113 taxman.com 353. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that tax pa…

M/s Modi Builders AND Realtors (P) Ltd., vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax,

The appeals are disposed of

ITTA/167/2012HC Telangana21 May 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 244ASection 260A

…he decision of the Delhi High Court in Goodyear India Limited (supra) and decisions of the Supreme Court in Narender Doshi (supra) and Sandvik Asia Limited (supra). Decision of the Madras High Court in CIT versus Needle Industries Private Limited, [1998] 233 ITR 370 (Mad) reflected upon and it was held that the words or the phrase ―any amount‖ would include the amount refundable plus the interest due and payable on the tax amount refunded. Thus, in view of the express provisions of Section 244A, interest was directed to be paid by the Revenue. ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012…

M/S K LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order

C.A. No.-004335-004335 - 2012Supreme Court01 Nov 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 241Section 244

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4335 OF 2012 M/S. K.LAKSHMANYA AND COMPANY ... Petitioner(s) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ... Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4357 OF 2012, 4358 OF 2012, 4359 OF 2012, 4356 OF 2012, 4346 OF 2012, 4349 OF 2012, 4355 OF 2012, 4353 OF 2012, 4339 OF 2012, 4343 OF 2012, 4348 OF 2012, 4345 OF 2012, 4350 OF 2012, 4351 OF 2012, 4347 OF 2012, 4336 OF 2012, 4340 OF 2012, 4338 OF 2012, 4337 OF 2012, 4354 OF 2012, 4352 OF 2012, 4344 OF 20…

DCIT vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK,

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1700/BANG/2013[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 1990-91

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran
Section 115J

…imited (supra) and decisions of the Supreme Court in Narender Doshi (supra) and Sandvik Asia Limited (supra). Decision of the ITA Nos.1700 to 1704/Bang/2013 Syndicate Bank Page 20 of 23 Madras High Court in CIT versus Needle Industries Private Limited, (1998) 233 ITR 370 (Mad) reflected upon and it was held that the words or the phrase “any amount” would include the amount refundable plus the interest due and payable on the tax amount refunded. Thus, in view of the express provisions of Section 244A, interest was directed to be paid by the Revenue. 14. Matter was taken by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in t…

INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORG

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/168/2012HC Delhi06 Sept 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 244ASection 260A

…he decision of the Delhi High Court in Goodyear India Limited (supra) and decisions of the Supreme Court in Narender Doshi (supra) and Sandvik Asia Limited (supra). Decision of the Madras High Court in CIT versus Needle Industries Private Limited, [1998] 233 ITR 370 (Mad) reflected upon and it was held that the words or the phrase ―any amount‖ would include the amount refundable plus the interest due and payable on the tax amount refunded. Thus, in view of the express provisions of Section 244A, interest was directed to be paid by the Revenue. ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012…

INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/167/2012HC Delhi06 Sept 2013
Section 244ASection 260A

…he decision of the Delhi High Court in Goodyear India Limited (supra) and decisions of the Supreme Court in Narender Doshi (supra) and Sandvik Asia Limited (supra). Decision of the Madras High Court in CIT versus Needle Industries Private Limited, [1998] 233 ITR 370 (Mad) reflected upon and it was held that the words or the phrase ―any amount‖ would include the amount refundable plus the interest due and payable on the tax amount refunded. Thus, in view of the express provisions of Section 244A, interest was directed to be paid by the Revenue. 2013:DHC:4454-DB ITA Nos. 167/2012 & 168/2012…

SANDVIK ASIA LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX-I, PUNE

In the result, the appeals stand allowed

C.A. No.-001337-001340 - 2005Supreme Court27 Jan 2006
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Pune & Ors
Section 214Section 264

…Lal S.Patel v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 419 though with different conclusions. Above being the position, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 9) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., 233 ITR 370 Mr. Parasaran argued that the High Court was right in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim on the sole ground that as the amount due to the appellant was on interest, no compensation could be paid to it even when gross delay in payment was admittedly made by the Department contrary to law. The Division Bench of the Madras http://…

CIT v. Needle Industries Private Limited (233 ITR 370) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax