How many judgments cite India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT?

54 judgments on BharatTax cite India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT (361 ITR 646), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 244A, Section 143(3), Section 244A(1A), Section 254, Section 140A(1), Section 154.

India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT

361 ITR 646High Court2014#2145 most cited

What is India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT authority for?

When a refund is due to an assessee under Section 244A, the amount must first be adjusted towards the interest payable on such refund, with the balance then adjusted against the tax amount refundable. This follows the principle of Section 140A(1) and means "any amount" in Section 244A includes accrued interest.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT · Section 244A interest on refund · Section 140A(1) adjustment · computation of interest · priority of refund adjustment · meaning of "any amount" Section 244A · Rule 119A · interest on interest

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 233

Sections most often in play

Section 244A Section 143(3)Section 244A(1A)Section 254 Section 140A(1)Section 154 Section 251 Section 10

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 244a(1)section 140a interest on interest interest on refund section 244 section 140 section 244a advance tax section 156 section 220 section 24

Judgments citing India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5908/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

…Appeal No. CIT(A)-4/IT-153/DC 2(1)/2013-14 had directed the ld AO to pass a speaking order and grant correct interest u/s 244A of the Act in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs CIT reported in 361 ITR 646 (Del). The ld AO following the direction of ld CITA considered the grant of interest u/s 244A of the Act in the giving effect to the ld CIT(A)’s order on 27.3.2015. In the said order , the ld AO took the figure of refund originally determined at Rs 200,87,14,868/- and calculated the interest for the period 1.4.95 to 4.7.97 u/s 244A of the Act at…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 883/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri C Naresh, AR

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 629/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2003-04) The Joint Commissioner of Bank of India Income Tax (OSD)-2(1)(1) Star House, C-5, G-Block, R.No. 561, 5th floor, Aayakar Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhavan, M.K. road, Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 400 020 051 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAACB0472C Aayakr Ap…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 629/MUM/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri C Naresh, AR

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211Section 250

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 1128/MUM/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1128/Mum/2017 & 1093/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2008-09) Dcit-2(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Star House, C-5, G-Block Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra-Kurla Complex Road, Mumbai-400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb0472C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Awunashi Gimson Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ays. 2004-05 & 2008-09. Ita. No. 1128/M/2017 The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.11.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Awunashi Gimson

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 254Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…t, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination the. end of the AO. in the relied upon by the assessee, the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization Vs. CIT (361 ITR 646] and accordingly given direction to the AO to fallout the said decision. Consisted with the view taken by theT'ribunal, restore this issue to the with the direction to examine the issue afresh by following the decision rendered in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (supra)" Consistent with the view taken in the above said appeal, we r…

DCIT - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5171/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 244A

…to the above, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had only directed the AO to examine the working of refund and the interest in the light of the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization v. CIT [361 ITR 646] and in accordance with the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the ITA NO. 5444 to 5446/Mum/2013. Hence, there should not be any grievance for the Department to come up in appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the issue involved is not granting of interest u/s. 244A of the Act on interest but only the method of adjustment of part…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of Indore, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5756/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244A

…e authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the first appellate authority in case of State Bank of Saurashtra, which in turn, has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in India Trade Promotion Organisation v/s CIT, 361 ITR 646 (Del.) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the refund in a manner so that the refund granted should be first adjusted against the interest refund due and balance, if any, should be adjusted against tax refund due. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. Learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have c…

DCIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of Saurashtra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5336/MUM/2015[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2017AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 88E

…tment of refund granted should be first - adjusted against the interest and thereafter against the tax refund due. In support of its claim, the appellant relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Orgainisation vs CIT (361 ITR 646). Following the said order, AO is directed to recompute the refund granted to the appellant accordingly. The AO is directed to compute refund in a manner so that the refund granted should be first adjusted against the interest refund due and balance if any, should be adjusted against the tax refund due. Hence, the ground of appeal is allowed. 6.…

DCIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of Saurashtra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri P.K. Bansal, Vp & Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm The Deputy Commissioner State Bank Of Saurashtra Of Income Tax, Circle- (Now Merged With Sbi) 2(2)(1), Mumbai Financial Reporting & Office Of The Dcit-2(2)(1) Taxation Department 3 Rd Vs. Floor, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aaccs9880R

For Appellant: C Naresh, ARFor Respondent: MN Swamy, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 88E

…avour of assessee and against Revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 363 ITR 658 (SC) and also by Delhi High court decision in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. CIT (2014) 361 ITR 646 (Del.) and the same was followed by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 348 (Mumbai-Trib.) wherein it is held that while granting refund in pursuance to appeal effect order, the amount of refund granted earlier should be adjusted first against interest on earlier refund and thereafter b…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Syndicate Bank, Manipal

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1188/BANG/2016[1984-85]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2017AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Nataraj, DCIT & Shri SiddappajiFor Respondent: Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha R, CAs

Section 244A(1)Section 244A(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH AT MANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1188 to 1194/Bang/2016 (Asst.years: 1984-85, 1987-88, 1990-91, 1998-99, & 2004-05 to 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1, Udupi. ... Appellant Vs. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Office, Manipal. ... Respondent PAN: AACCS 4699 E Appellant by : Shri Nataraj, DCIT & Shri Siddappaji, Addl.CIT (DRs) Respondent by : Shri S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha R, CAs Date of hearing : 31/01/2017 Date of pronouncement…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7589/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Union Bank Of India, Acit Ltu, Central Accounts 29Th Floor, World बनाम/ Department, Vi Floor, 239 Trade Centre, Cuff Vs. Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Parade Nariman Point Mumbai -400 021 Mumbai-400005 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacu0564G Assessee By Shri C. Naresh (Ar) Revenue By Shri G.M. Doss (Dr)

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 244A

…e first adjusted against the interest refund due and thereafter against the tax refund due as is done in the case of payment of tax made u/s 140A. Reliance is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation vs CIT (361 ITR 646). The AO over looked the provisions of the sec 244A wherein the section provides that where, as a result of an order under 250 or section 254 or section 260 the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly. In the present contex…

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 3002/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 115JSection 154Section 244A

…this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. In the decisions relied 3 Bank of India upon by the assessee, the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. CIT (361 ITR 646) and accordingly given direction to the AO to follow the said decision. Consisted with the view taken by the Tribunal, we restore this issue to his file with the direction to examine this issue afresh by following the decision rendered in the case of India Trade Promotion organisation (supra). 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee i…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1700 to 1704/Bang/2013 (Assessment years: 1990-91, 2004-05 to 2007-08) Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Udupi. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Syndicate Bank, H.O. Manipal. … Respondent PAN: AACCS 4699E Appellant by: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT(DR) Respondent by: Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran. Date of hearing : 10/06/2015. Date of pronouncement: 30/06/2015. O R D E R Per BENCH : All these are revenue’s appeals for the assessment years 1990-91, 2004-05 to…

CIT vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-Operative

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA/64/2013HC Delhi03 Mar 2015

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 214Section 244Section 244A

…e Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V. HEG Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 331 supports the view adopted by the ITAT. Learned counsel also stated that a Division Bench of this Court had followed HEG Ltd. (supra), in India Trade Promotion Organisation V. CIT (2014) 361 ITR 646. In India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) it was held – after consideration of HEG Ltd. (supra) that “15. A reading of the aforesaid passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in HEG Limited (supra) indicates that it ITA 64/2013 Page 5 would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when part payment is ma…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-Operative

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA/542/2012HC Delhi03 Mar 2015

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 214Section 244Section 244A

…e Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V. HEG Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 331 supports the view adopted by the ITAT. Learned counsel also stated that a Division Bench of this Court had followed HEG Ltd. (supra), in India Trade Promotion Organisation V. CIT (2014) 361 ITR 646. In India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) it was held – after consideration of HEG Ltd. (supra) that “15. A reading of the aforesaid passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in HEG Limited (supra) indicates that it 2015:DHC:2060-DB ITA 542/2012 Page 5 would be incorrect and improper to regard payment of interest when…