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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

140A(1),it is stipulated where the amount paid by an assessee under self-assessment falls short of the aggregate amount of tax and interest aforesaid, the amount paid shall first be adjusted towards the interest payable and the balance,if any,shall be adjusted towards the tax payable.This interpretation follows the same principle,when the Revenue defaults and makes

LIFETIME REALTY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6632/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11,) Life Time Realty Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 8(2), 425-426, Laxmi Mall, Laxmi Room No. 209, Aaykar बिधम/ Industrial Area, Andheri (W), Bhawan, M.K Road, Mumbai- 400053. Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcl1276B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

section 140A(3) of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the penalty imposed be cancelled. 2. Your appellant craves leave to alter, modify, amend or delete the above ground of appeal, or to add one or more new ground(s), as may be necessary.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

VIACOM 18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

140A(3) was non- existent in view of the said decision of the Madras High Court and cancelled the order of the penalty. Thus, it can be seen that the said decision is not relevant to the facts of the present case a the same has been rendered in connection with non-existent section. 6. During the course of hearing

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR IN BUSINESS OF ERSTWHILE ING VYSYA BANK LTD.),MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR. - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

140A, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period, from the date of furnishing of return of income or payment of tax, whichever is later, to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that no interest under clause (a) or clause

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

VINAY VIKRAM OBEROI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)4, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vinay Vikram Oberoi Income Tax Officer-22(3)-4 22, Punit Chambers Tower 6, 3Rd Floor Plot 769-C, Sector 18 Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex Turbhe, Vashi Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan - Aaapo2816L Appellant Respondent

3. One of the other reasons for the non-payment of taxes was that we were expecting a refund, which however could not be realized since the claim was disputed by the Department and the same is pending before the CIT Appeals-10 at Earnest House, Nariman Point. The status of refunci.dues for the relevant years have been disclosed

DSP MERRILL LYNCH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL C.I.T. RANGE 4(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS credit allowed 6,71,889 6,71,889 Advance tax paid 1,12,50,000 1,12,50,000 Balance tax payable 55,24,409 55,24,409 B Interest paid by assessee on Self-assessment uls, 140A: Section 234C 21,741 21,741 Section 234B Nil Nil Self-assessment tax paid on 29.12.90 (including

ADDL CIT SP RG 22, MUMBAI vs. DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS credit allowed 6,71,889 6,71,889 Advance tax paid 1,12,50,000 1,12,50,000 Balance tax payable 55,24,409 55,24,409 B Interest paid by assessee on Self-assessment uls, 140A: Section 234C 21,741 21,741 Section 234B Nil Nil Self-assessment tax paid on 29.12.90 (including

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

3,52,28.442/- on which the assessee is entitled to interest u/s. 244A of the Act whereas the Assessing Officer calculated the balance refund clue at Rs. 2,03,99,541/-(tax component) and Rs. 1,58,28,901/-(interest component). Reason for such calculation was that according to the Assessing Officer no interest is payable on interest

DCTI-3(4), , MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

3,52,28.442/- on which the assessee is entitled to interest u/s. 244A of the Act whereas the Assessing Officer calculated the balance refund clue at Rs. 2,03,99,541/'-(tax component) and Rs. 1,58,28,901/- (interest component). Reason for such calculation was that according to the Assessing Officer no interest is payable on interest

DCTI-3(4), , MUMBAI vs. M/S IDBI BANK LTD , MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

3,52,28.442/- on which the assessee is entitled to interest u/s. 244A of the Act whereas the Assessing Officer calculated the balance refund clue at Rs. 2,03,99,541/'-(tax component) and Rs. 1,58,28,901/- (interest component). Reason for such calculation was that according to the Assessing Officer no interest is payable on interest

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 allowed as indicated above

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

JT. CIT (OSD)- 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 allowed as indicated above

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 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