PIEM HOTELS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above\nterms

TDS unlike this case where refund\nis out of DDT. Thus, the facts are different. In UOI &Ors.\nv. Dhanwanti Devi & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 44the Supreme\nCourt held.\n\" 9 ..... Every judgment must be read as\napplicable to the particular facts proved.\nsince the generality of the expressions\nwhich may be found there is not intended to\nbe exposition

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

140A(3) of the Act has already been declared ultra vires by competent High Court in country, authority like Tribunal acting anywhere in country has to respect law laid down by High Court, though of different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

140A(3) of the Act has already been declared ultra vires by competent High Court in country, authority like Tribunal acting anywhere in country has to respect law laid down by High Court, though of different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

140A(3) of the Act has already been declared ultra vires by competent High Court in country, authority like Tribunal acting anywhere in country has to respect law laid down by High Court, though of different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

140A(3) of the Act has already been declared ultra vires by competent High Court in country, authority like Tribunal acting anywhere in country has to respect law laid down by High Court, though of different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

140A(3) of the Act has already been declared ultra vires by competent High Court in country, authority like Tribunal acting anywhere in country has to respect law laid down by High Court, though of different State, so long as there is no contrary decision of any other High Court on that point. (Page 15 to 16 of Paper Book

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

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

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

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 assessee i.e., the amount shall first be adjusted towards

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

140A(3) of the\nAct has already been declared ultra vires by\ncompetent High Court in country, authority like\nTribunal acting anywhere in country has to respect\nlaw laid down by High Court, though of different\nState, so long as there is no contrary decision of any\nother High Court on that point.\n(Page 15 to 16 of Paper

ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL AMC LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Blea.C.I.T, Circle – 2(2)(1) V. M/S. Icici Prudential Amc Ltd., Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, 8Th Floor, Peninsula Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Park, Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400 013 Pan: Aaaci 1000 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Abi Rama Kartikeyan

TDS etc. It was further submitted that clause 'b' of section 244(1) covers interest on refund in "any other case". According to the appellant, its case is covered by the interest arising on account of payments of tax other than the payments covered u/s.244A(1)(a). Since the payment of self- assessment tax is not specifically covered by section

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

TDS was more than the tax payable on returned income the appellant had paid self-assessment tax which is in violation of the provisions of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the appellant is not entitled to interest on amount of refund due out of excess self-assessment tax paid. (b) The learned

RAYMOND LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 8641 & 8642/Mum/2011 (A.Ys. 1999-2000 & 2000-01) Raymond Limited, Vs. The Dcit-2(3) New Hind House, Aayakar Bhavan, Narottam Morarjee Marg, M.K. Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr4896A Assessee .. Revenue

TDS was more than the tax payable on returned income the appellant had paid self-assessment tax which is in violation of the provisions of section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the appellant is not entitled to interest on amount of refund due out of excess self-assessment tax paid. (b) The learned

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

140A would have reference to the tax payable on the basis of the return minus, inter alia, the MAT credit claimed to be set off in accordance with the provisions of section 115JAA of the said Act.” 71. Similar issue had arisen before the Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar 220 ITR 232 wherein the question