← All Phrases

“interest on refund”

InterestSection 244ASection 244A278 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest on refund is Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT (280 ITR 643), cited in 96 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest on refund

Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT
280 ITR 643 · 2006 · Supreme Court
96
citing judgments

Assessees are entitled to compensation for the inordinate delay by the Income Tax Department in refunding excess tax, which includes interest on the statutory interest due under section 244A for such delayed refunds.

Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
363 ITR 658 · 2014 · Supreme Court
91
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.
330 ITR 62 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

An insurance claim received on stock in trade constitutes business income and is not an independent source of income.

CIT v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
125 Taxmann 1094 · 2002 · High Court
77
citing judgments

Interest levied under Section 201(1A) for delayed remittance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) is compensatory in nature, not penal. It is a distinct provision for delayed remittance, similar to interest paid by Revenue on refunds.

CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals
358 ITR 291 · 2013 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

An assessee is not entitled to interest on interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, particularly regarding interest granted on a refund.

Union Bank of India v. ACIT
72 Taxmann.com 348 · 2016 · ITAT
69
citing judgments

A tax refund must first be adjusted towards interest payable under Section 244A, with the balance then appropriated against the principal tax amount. This approach does not lead to interest on interest.

CIT v. HEG Ltd.
324 ITR 331 · 2010 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

Under Section 244A, the "amount due" for a refund includes both the principal tax and the interest accrued thereon up to the date the refund is granted. If the revenue fails to pay the full amount of refund, it is liable to pay further interest on the outstanding balance of this total refund, which does not constitute "interest on interest".

India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT
361 ITR 646 · 2014 · High Court
54
citing judgments

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 citing interest on refund

Intermark Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Gandhidham vs. JCIT(OSD), Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 246A

determined. This refund was credited to the assessee’s account on 13.01.2021. The assessee filed application dated 14.07.2021 thereby requesting the PCIT for interest on refund from date of Assessment Order till the date of actual receipt of refund in the Bank account. The JCIT vide order dated 27.08.2021 rejected ... Taxman 591(SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the assessee was entitled to interest in case of interest on refund was granted to the assessee after substantial lapse of time. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and the present case has identical facts and, therefore

Mufg Bank Ltd. (Earlier Known As the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufg Ltd.), Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1246/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 144C(3)Section 234DSection 244ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT in its own case in the year under reference 29.08.2019. In view of the same the AO is directed to tax interest on refund in accordance with the order of Hon’ble ITAT, New Delhi, referred to above unless the Department has filed appeal on the same issue ... ground no. 1, the DRP vide its direction dated 23.02.2022 at para 6.4 page no. 5 directed the AO to tax interest on refund in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble ITAT referred above unless the department has filed appeal on the same issue in higher courts

Fil India Business & Research Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Dc, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargfil India Business & Vs. Dc Research Services P. Ltd., Circle – 7(1) Private Studio – New Delhi Ncr/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110 002 Pan : Aabcf 1572 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. Shri Rishabh Malhotra, A.R. & Shri Bhavya Gupta, C.A. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

provisions of Income Computation Disclosure Standards (‘ICDS’) IV (Revenue recognition) while computing the tax payable on assessed income by making addition f of interest on refund of income tax amounting to INR 24,229,899 despite the fact that the same was not actually received during ... Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No.4 is with respect to the addition made on account of interest of refund of income tax amounting to Rs.2,42,29,899/-. 14. Before us, Learned AR submitted that during the year under consideration, assessee had accrued

M/S Piramal Enterprises Limiited, Mumbsi vs. Dy CIT(Appeal)-Range-8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 727/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd., Dy. Cit, Mumbai-8(1)(2), Or Piramal Tower, Agastya National Facelss Assessment Vs. Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Centre, Delhi, Kamani Junction, Kurla Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400070. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacn 4538 P Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Ronak Doshi : Revenue By Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr & Mr. Samuel Pitta, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Ronak Doshi
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)

GROUND NO. I AND II AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. I AND II AS MENTIONED ABOVE: MENTIONED ABOVE: GROUND NO. X: INTEREST ON REFUND U/S 244A OF GROUND NO. X: INTEREST ON REFUND U/S 244A OF GROUND NO. X: INTEREST ON REFUND U/S 244A ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in granting lower interest on refund under Ld. AO has erred in granting lower interest on refund under Ld. AO has erred in granting lower interest on refund under section 244A of section 244A

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 1(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result of above discussion keeping in view the provisions of statute and Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2016, we accept the arguments of assessee, and ground no

ITA 305/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalwest Cost Paper Mills Ltd., Shree Niwas House, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. Pan: Aaact4179N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-1(3) (4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Alpesh Dharod & Sh. Tarun Ashok Chopda, Ars Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 244A(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.01.2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Alpesh Dharod &For Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar- Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)Section 24ASection 271(1)(c)

only i.e. from 30-07-2016 being the date of payment of regular assessment tax till 29-01-2018, instead of calculating the interest on refund till 21-05-2018, being the date on which refund is granted. This has resulted in short grant of interest u/s 244A ... 305/Mum/2021-West Cost Paper Mills Ltd. "Clause 90 of the Bill seeks to amend section 244A of the Income tax Act relating to interest on refunds. .............. Sub-clause (B) of the said clause seeks to insert a new subsection (1A) so as to provide that that where a refund arising

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155J

Bill 2016 which reads as under:- "Clause 90 of the Bill seeks to amend section 244A of the Income tax Act relating to interest on refunds. ......... Sub-clause (B) of the said clause seeks to insert a new subsection (14) so as to provide that that where a refund arising

Aachman Vanijya Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1511/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 8(4) Main Building, 2Nd Floor 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Kolkata, West Bengal-700001 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aacca5165H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., refund in its computation of income. Accordingly, he added to the income of the assessee to the extent of interest on refund received by the assessee. 5. Further, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has received dividend income of ₹.31,09,110/- and claimed it as exempt ... assessee on income tax refund u/s. 244A of the Act , the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings observed that assessee has received interest on refund to the extent of ₹. 9,64,816/-. However, it is brought to our notice assessee is not aware of the fact that it has received

Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)- Circle-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1004/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1004/मुं/2022("न.व .2016-17) Aker Solutions India Sdn Bhd Level 16 Integra Towers The Landmark 348, Jalan Tun Razak, Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia - 50400 Pan: Aaica-1114-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax( International Taxation), Circle 1(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Hemen Chandariya & Anish Thacker ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 16/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) In Upholding The Assessment Order Taxing The Interest On Income Tax Refund As Business Income Under 2 Article-7 Of The India- Malaysia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) @40% + Surcharge @ 5% + Cess @ 3%.

For Appellant: S/Shri Hemen Chandariya and Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar
Section 244A

Uttarakhand High Court in the case BJ Services Company Middle East Ltd. applied provisions of Article -7 of DTAA and taxed interest on refund of Income Tax at a higher rate. The assessee remained unsuccessful before the CIT(A), hence, the present appeal. 3.1 The ld. Authorized Representative

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the action of the respondent in denying the appellants' claim for interest on refund under Section 244A?" 3. In para 3 of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, the appeals were admitted to consider the substantial

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 244/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the action of the respondent in denying the appellants' claim for interest on refund under Section 244A?" 3. In para 3 of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, the appeals were admitted to consider the substantial

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 242/BANG/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the action of the respondent in denying the appellants' claim for interest on refund under Section 244A?" 3. In para 3 of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, the appeals were admitted to consider the substantial

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/BANG/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the action of the respondent in denying the appellants' claim for interest on refund under Section 244A?" 3. In para 3 of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, the appeals were admitted to consider the substantial

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/BANG/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the action of the respondent in denying the appellants' claim for interest on refund under Section 244A?" 3. In para 3 of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, the appeals were admitted to consider the substantial

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 239/BANG/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in upholding the action of the respondent in denying the appellants' claim for interest on refund under Section 244A?" 3. In para 3 of the order by the Hon’ble High Court, the appeals were admitted to consider the substantial

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

said that legal right was not acquired on the date of refund. The effect of assessment under Section 143(3) would be that interest on refund under Section 244A would get substituted in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 244A without affecting right already accrued. 13. At this stage ... interest if assessed can be rectified under Section 154. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that interest on refund under Section 244A(1) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under Section

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Us :-

Section 154Section 244A

such requirement is satisfied, to the extent of the period of delay so attributable to the assessee, he would be disentitled to claim interest on refund. The act of revising a return or raising a claim during the course of the assessment proceedings cannot be said to be the reasons

DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2218/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

between the parties. This, however, was amended in the Supplemental Agreement by way of revised Clause (18), which removed the requirement to pay interest on refund. Instead it was clarified that only the option deposit shall be refunded (without any interest or claim), save and except for the event

K Raheja Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir-4(2), `Mumbai

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

ITA 1970/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1970/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-4(2) Raheja Tower, Plot No. C- Room No.1918, Air India Vs. 30, Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Building, Nariman Point- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), 400021. Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2218/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Dcit Central Circle-4(2) बिधम/ K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1918, Air India Raheja Tower, Plot No. C-30, Vs. Building, Nariman Point- Oppo. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla 400021. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack1949H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Neelam Shukla (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-52, Mumbai Dated 08.09.2021 For The A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 14A

between the parties. This, however, was amended in the Supplemental Agreement by way of revised Clause (18), which removed the requirement to pay interest on refund. Instead it was clarified that only the option deposit shall be refunded (without any interest or claim), save and except for the event

Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporatin Lt, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2866/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2022AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri Madhav KanhereFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234DSection 244A

assessee after a substantial delay of 12-17 years. The Hon’ble Apex Court accordingly allowed interest for inordinate delay in payment of interest on refund to the assessee. This judgment, which was rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is noted to been later

Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 362/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CA
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 237Section 244ASection 250

refund that was withheld till the date of issue of the refund order. Further, in the present facts, the assessee had already received interest on refund u/s. 244A of the Act though it was computed with a shortfall. Interest on interest as available to assessee under newly inserted sub-clause