Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.

363 ITR 658Supreme Court of India2014#1247 most cited

What is Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

The Department has a moral and legal obligation to refund excess tax collected from taxpayers, along with interest. An assessee is entitled to interest on the amount of taxes refunded, including interest on interest, as per Section 244A of the Income-tax Act.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. · interest on refund · Section 244A · interest on interest · excess tax collected · department's obligation · tax refund · Section 244 · Section 243 · 363 ITR 658 · 43 Taxmann.com 240 · 6 SCC 335

Also reported as

43 Taxmann.com 240822 Taxmann 2256 SCC 335

Sections most often in play

Section 244ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 147Section 243Section 244Section 140A(1)Section 244(1A)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 153a(b)interest on refundinterest on interestsection 140asection 263(2)section 244section 142(2c)section 243section 244asection 140abatement of assessment

Judgments citing Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 468/DEL/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1994-95

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

…, there is no proviso attached to sub-Clause (b), the embargo of 10% is not applicable for calculation of interest for the refund arising out of payment of self-assessment tax. 56. Further, in this aspect, we are guided by the judgment of Tata Chemicals Ltd. 6 SCC 335 as to what the tax refund is. It was held that the tax refund is a refund of taxes when the tax liability is less than the taxes paid. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the assessee was entitled for payment of interest on the amount of taxes refunded pursuant to an order passed under the Act including the order passed in an appeal. In the case o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2641/DEL/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

…, there is no proviso attached to sub-Clause (b), the embargo of 10% is not applicable for calculation of interest for the refund arising out of payment of self-assessment tax. 56. Further, in this aspect, we are guided by the judgment of Tata Chemicals Ltd. 6 SCC 335 as to what the tax refund is. It was held that the tax refund is a refund of taxes when the tax liability is less than the taxes paid. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the assessee was entitled for payment of interest on the amount of taxes refunded pursuant to an order passed under the Act including the order passed in an appeal. In the case o…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2553/DEL/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 1999-00

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(3)Section 254

…, there is no proviso attached to sub-Clause (b), the embargo of 10% is not applicable for calculation of interest for the refund arising out of payment of self-assessment tax. 56. Further, in this aspect, we are guided by the judgment of Tata Chemicals Ltd. 6 SCC 335 as to what the tax refund is. It was held that the tax refund is a refund of taxes when the tax liability is less than the taxes paid. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the assessee was entitled for payment of interest on the amount of taxes refunded pursuant to an order passed under the Act including the order passed in an appeal. In the case o…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…mbiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. (Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (363 ITR 658) (para-22). iii.) The approval granted under section 153D of the Act by the Supervisory officer (Additional/Jt. CIT) is merely an Administrative order and no civil or penalty consequences flow from such an order against the assessee. The approval of Supervisory officer is totally distinct from the assessment order and not required to be communica…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…mbiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. (Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (363 ITR 658) (para-22). iii.) The approval granted under section 153D of the Act by the Supervisory officer (Additional/Jt. CIT) is merely an Administrative order and no civil or penalty consequences flow from such an order against the assessee. The approval of Supervisory officer is totally distinct from the assessment order and not required to be communica…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…mbiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. (Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (363 ITR 658) (para-22). iii.) The approval granted under section 153D of the Act by the Supervisory officer (Additional/Jt. CIT) is merely an Administrative order and no civil or penalty consequences flow from such an order against the assessee. The approval of Supervisory officer is totally distinct from the assessment order and not required to be communica…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blecitibank Overseas Investment Corporation V. Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) V. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor Corporation Air India Building C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 30 Floor, Tower 3 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 India Bulls Finance Centre Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation v. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/o Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP Room No. 1713, 17th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AABCC5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) v. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17th Floor Corpora…

Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 276/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blecitibank Overseas Investment Corporation V. Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) V. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17Th Floor Corporation Air India Building C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp 30 Floor, Tower 3 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 India Bulls Finance Centre Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcc5333N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 244A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation v. Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) C/o Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP Room No. 1713, 17th Floor 30 Floor, Tower 3 Air India Building India Bulls Finance Centre Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AABCC5333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. CIT (International Taxation) – 2(1)(1) v. Citibank Overseas Investment Room No. 1713, 17th Floor Corpora…

M/S. Edgeverve Systems Ltd., Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee's appeals in IT(IT)A Nos

ITA 1178/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A Nos.1178 To 1191/Bang/2017 (Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S. Edgeverve Systems Limited, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100 ….Appellant Pan Aadce6300K Vs. Dy. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Transaction), Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 244ASection 248Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A Nos.1178 to 1191/Bang/2017 (Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/s. Edgeverve Systems Limited, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 100 ….Appellant PAN AADCE6300K Vs. Dy. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Transaction), Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 05.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 06.12.2019…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2234/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…sessee’s own case as well as judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9. Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of better clarity in deciding the…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…sessee’s own case as well as judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9. Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of better clarity in deciding the…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2232/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…sessee’s own case as well as judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9. Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of better clarity in deciding the…

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2231/MUM/2018[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 1991-92

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…sessee’s own case as well as judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9. Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of better clarity in deciding the…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1803/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…sessee’s own case as well as judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9. Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of better clarity in deciding the…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1802/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…sessee’s own case as well as judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9. Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of better clarity in deciding the…

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1801/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 244A

…sessee’s own case as well as judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9. Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of better clarity in deciding the…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5910/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Acit-2(2)(1) Vs. M/S. State Bank Of India Room No.545, 5Th Floor Frt Department, 3Rd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Corporate Centre, State M.K.Road Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Churchgate, Road, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aaacs8577K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 244A

…'s own case as well as judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9 Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 658/822 Taxman 225/43 taxmann.com 240 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of b…

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)

…'s own case as well as judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra). 3.9 Before parting with, we are reminded of a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 658/822 Taxman 225/43 taxmann.com 240 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed at length about moral and legal obligation of the department to refund the amount of tax collected from the tax payers which was more than the amount actually due as per law, along with interest. Some of the useful observations are reproduced hereunder for the sake of b…

The Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1427/KOL/2017[1990-1991]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 1990-1991
Section 244Section 244ASection 250

…rest for 57 months on Rs. 45,73,5289. The principal amount of Rs. 45,73,528 has been paid on 31.12.1997 but not of interest which, as stated above, partook the character of "amount due" under Section 244-A.' 15. In Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 658/222 Taxman 225/43 taxmann.com 240 (SC), this Court after going into the object for the enactment of Section 244(A), held: 4 I.T.A. No. 1427/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 1990-91 The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd "Interest payment is a statutory obligation and non- discretionary in nature to the assessee. In tune with the aforesaid general pri…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1360/MUM/2016[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

Section 244ASection 51

…interest by the Department for delay in grant of refunds since there were some lacunae in the earlier provisions with regard to non-payment of interest by the Government to the assessee for money remaining with the Government.In the matter of Tata Chemicals (363 ITR 658)the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elucidated and clarified the philosophy behind granting interest as under: “Providing for payment of interest in case of refund of amounts paid as tax or deemed tax or advance tax is a method now statutorily adopted by fiscal legislation to ensure that the amount of tax which has been duly paid in prescribed time and…