India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

…decision the Co-ordinate Bench by following the decision for AY 2003-04 in assesses own case in ITA No. 629/Mum/2018 dated 10.04.2019 as well as in the light of judgement of Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (2014) 361 ITR 646 (DEL). Restore the matter to the file of ld. AO with the direction to decide the issue qua computation of interest u/s. 244A afresh as well as in terms of Rule 119A of the Rules. Relevant para 10 of the said order is extracted below for ready reference: “We have heard the Id. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of…

GOLDENCROSS PHARMA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(1)(1) CURRENT JAO- DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankargoldencross Pharma V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Tower A, 1St Floor, Peninsula Current Jao-Dcit, Central Business Park, Ganpatrao Circle 1(2), Aaykar Bhavan, Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mk Road, Current Jao-906, Mumbai – 400013, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Maharashtra Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcg0541J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

…In yet another case of Tata Sons (P) Ltd V DCIT (2023) 204 ITD 802 Mumbai ITAT following the decision of Union Bank of India (supra), Grasim Industries Ltd (supra) and hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in case of India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. CIT in 361 ITR 646 wherein the Court observed that under Explanation to section 140A(1) of the Act, when an assessee is duty bound to pay the outstanding tax, amount paid by the assessee shall first be adjusted against interest payable and the balance shall be adjusted against tax payable, the same procedure needs to be followed in respect of refund due to the asse…

PURANMAL DELHIWALA,WADALA, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

…High Court in\nthe case of Tata Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT (2024) 462 ITR\n86, therein, in paragraph 2 from page nos.13 to 16, the High Court has\nreferred to judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of India\nTrade Promotion Organisation vs CIT (2014) 361 ITR 646,\nwhere, the discussion on this aspect of the matter is reproduced on\npages 91 and 92 as below:\n“... The next question which we are required to answer is what is the\nmeaning of the words ‘refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee' in\ns.244A ? In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of\nthe tax paid by the assesse…

ATUL PROPERTIES ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Acit, Circle – 24(1) Atul Properties Mumbai 5Th Floor, Trade Avenue, Suren Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400093 Pan/Gir No. Aamfa3756F (Applicant) (Respondent)

…Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA No. 236/Mum/2016 for the A.Y 1995-96 decided on 30.10.2019. Apart from the above the Ld. AR drawn my attention to the findings of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646. 4 Atul Properties, Mumbai 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 8. After having gone through the submissions of both the parties, I find that the identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench and directed the AO to adjust the refund in question in accordance with the principles…

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5109/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & I.T.A. No. 5102/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Tata Sons Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income Bombay House Vs Tax – 2(3)(1), Mumbai 24, Homi Mody Street Fort, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400001 [PAN: AAACT4060A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, A/R Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Da…

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5109/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & I.T.A. No. 5102/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Tata Sons Private Limited Deputy Commissioner of Income Bombay House Vs Tax – 2(3)(1), Mumbai 24, Homi Mody Street Fort, Mumbai Maharashtra – 400001 [PAN: AAACT4060A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, A/R Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Da…

DCIT CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. IDBI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Idbi Bank Ltd. Dcit Circle 3(4) 7Th Floor, R.No. 559, 5Th Floor, Idbi Tower Wtc Complex Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 020 Mm 400005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci8842G

…ted towards the fee payable, and thereafter towards the IDBI Bank Ltd.; A.Y. 2004-05 interest payable and the balance if any shall be adjusted towards the tax payable. Honourable Delhi High Court in case of India trade promotion Organization versus CIT (2014) 361 ITR 646 in paragraph number 15-16 has held as under:- "15. A reading of the aforesaid passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in H.E.G. Ltd. (supra) indicates that it would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is made as interest on interest. What has been elucidated and clarified by the Supreme Court is that…

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 2362/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 1993-94) Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of Income Bombay House, 24, Tax-2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5th Floor, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, PAN : AAACT4060A. Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri Madhur Agrawal Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl.CIT) Revenue/Respondent by Date of Hearing : 05.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06.12.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the ord…

DCTI-3(4), , MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…d 22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT12014] 361 ITR 646/12013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

DCTI-3(4), , MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

…d 22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT12014] 361 ITR 646/12013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

DCIT, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LIMITED, MUMBAI CITY

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalita Nos. 2034 & 2035/Mum/2023 (A.Y:1999-2000 &1998-99) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), Vs. M/S Sicom Limited, Room No.609, Solitaire Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Building No.4, M.K. Road, Guru Nanak Marg, Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Midc S.O, Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs5524J Appellant .. Respondent

…against interest component and balance if any should be adjusted against principal refund amount and such net principal refund amount should be considered whereas no such methodology was laied down in the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of ITPO vs CIT 361 ITR 646? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating that in the decision in the case of ITPO vs CIT 361 ITR 66, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had only held that if interest due was not granted along with refund earlier granted, that interest amount was eligible for interest u/s. 244A(1) while in…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

…22.07.2015 in ITA No. 918/Mum/2014 for A.Y. 2005-06. It was further submitted by him that this issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT [2014] 361 ITR 646/[2013] 38 taxmann.com 233 which has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee is not claiming interest on interest; and the only prayer of the assessee is to make adjustment of the refund issued earlier in the same manner as tax paid by the assessee to the departme…

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 :-

…Ltd vs DCIT reported in 186 ITD 675 (wherein Accountant Member herein was the author). Similar views were also expressed in the following decisions:- a) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs CIT reported in 361 ITR 646 (Del) b) Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Union Bank of India vs ACIT reported in 52 ITR(T) 221 c) Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bank of Baroda vs DCIT in d) Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs State Bank of India in ITA Nos. 5908 & 5909/Mum/2017 9 H.U.F. of His Late Highness Sir J.M.Scindia e) Decision of…

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6271/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 1995-96) Dcit Circle-2(2)(1) State Bank Of India R. No. 545, Aaykar Bhavan Financial Reporting & Tax. Deptt. बिाम/ 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Rd. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-8577-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Vijay Jaiswal– Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri C. Naresh– Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 25/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

…1995-96 wherein reliance had been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HEG Limited reported in 324 ITR 331 and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. CIT reported in 361 ITR 646. We find that the ld. DR fairly agreed that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in the case of State Bank of Indore in ITA No.2972/Mum/2011. We also find that this Tribunal had also held in the case of Bank of Baroda in ITA No.1646/Mum/2017 dated 20/12/2018 (authored by the undersigned) wherei…