Wipro Ltd. v. JCIT, Special Range-7, Bangalore

438 ITR 581High Court2021#24992 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 11 Section 115TD Section 12 Section 12A Section 12AA Section 12AA(1)Section 12AA(3)Section 12AA(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 254 section 143 prescribed person section 14 section 143(3)total income interest

Judgments citing Wipro Ltd. v. JCIT, Special Range-7, Bangalore

Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)

…i Astemo Haryana Private Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, 11 ITA.No.1128/Hyd./2024 Circle-10(1), New Delhi in ITA.No.3353/Del./2024 dated 03.09.2025; iv. Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd., vs. JCIT, Special Range-7, Bangalore [2021] 438 ITR 581 (Karnataka); 4.2. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that the Hon’ble High Courts as well as this Tribunal has held that the limitation for passing the consequential order is provided u/sec.153 of the Act and therefore, the Order passed by the Assessing Officer beyond the limitation period is barred by limitation and…

Althi Venkata Narendra Raju, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

ITA 1247/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153(3)

…limitation within the meanings of section 153(3). It has been argued inviting reference to the statutory provisions of section 153(3) as well as judicial precedents covering the subject pronounced by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Limited 438 ITR 581, of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S Kasi, Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Rungta Mines Limited etc, that the impugned order is barred by limitation. 5.0 Per contra the Ld DR argued in favour of order of lower authorities . It was submitted that the order of Ld AO is saved by the TOLA guidelines and hence it is not barred by li…

The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., Kollam vs. The Dict, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 154Section 244A

…precludes the Revenue to, acting unreasonably, not accept it’s claim for refund u/s. 237 for AY 2005-06, eschewing it moving the Hon’ble High Court under it’s writ jurisdiction for that year. We also draw support from the decision in Wipro Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 438 ITR 581 (Kar), holding that the Revenue is bound to refund the excess tax collected by it. 6. In our considered view, the curtailment of the period of refund by the Revenue in the instant case falls within the ambit of s. 244A(2). While the Revenue has, and in our view, supported by reasons, excluded, not incorrectly, the period of 41 months (April, 2005…