India Ltd., 249 ITR 527 9. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd.

194 ITR 148High Court1992#23350 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2021.

Judgments citing India Ltd., 249 ITR 527 9. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3379/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra-CIT DR and Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…eceived refund of excess tax paid by him. The interest received at that point of time u/s 244A could not be regarded as refund. The Ld. Sr. Counsel distinguished the decision of Hon‟ble Assessment Year: 2001-02 Bombay High Court in Suresh B.Jain V/s PKP Nair (194 ITR 148) which held that interest would include the amount of interest. It has been submitted that this decision was rendered in the context of Sec.245 wherein refund could be set-off against the demand. It could not be said that for the purposes of Sec.245, the adjustment of refund could be only in respect of tax and not of the interest component. The L…

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 834/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Standard Chartered Bank Ddit (It)-2(1), बनाम/ 1St Floor, Scindia House, Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, N. M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 038 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 4681 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ankit Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

For Appellant: Shri Ankit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 243DSection 245

…adjustment against the demand for the current year, outstanding on 21/1/2009, so that the assessee cannot be made liable for interest on such delayed adjustment. Reference in this context is also drawn to the decision in Suresh B. Jain v. P.K. P. Nair [1992] 194 ITR 148 (Bom) as well as others on the aspect of ‘grant’ of refund, as judicially explained, rendered in the context of ss. 244 & 244A. We, accordingly, setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue, restore the matter back to the file of the assessing authority for proper determination of this aspect of the matter in accordance with the law, i.…

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

…s. Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors., 175 ITR 535 at 539 8. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Goodyear India Ltd., 249 ITR 527 9. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd., 233 ITR 370 10. Suresh B. Jain vs. P.K.P. Nair and Ors. 194 ITR 148 Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Commissioner had decided the matter in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court and the direction was to decide the claim in relation to the interest payable to the appellant in the light of the law laid down in Modi Industries Ltd. c…

India Ltd., 249 ITR 527 9. Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd. (194 ITR 148) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax