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

Section 244A? In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of the tax paid by the assessee for which the assessee was granted refund, namely TDS

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on self-assessment tax paid, by relying on the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -6, Mumbai dated 30/09/2011 for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1998-99, on the ground that even though the advance tax and TDS

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on self-assessment tax paid, by relying on the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -6, Mumbai dated 30/09/2011 for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1998-99, on the ground that even though the advance tax and TDS

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

244A of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once excess advance tax and TDS are adjusted with tax liability arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), it loses the character of advance tax and TDS and becomes tax paid on regular assessment and thus, the proviso to section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

244A of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once excess advance tax and TDS are adjusted with tax liability arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), it loses the character of advance tax and TDS and becomes tax paid on regular assessment and thus, the proviso to section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2 3 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

244A of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once excess advance tax and TDS are adjusted with tax liability arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), it loses the character of advance tax and TDS and becomes tax paid on regular assessment and thus, the proviso to section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

244A of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once excess advance tax and TDS are adjusted with tax liability arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), it loses the character of advance tax and TDS and becomes tax paid on regular assessment and thus, the proviso to section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

244A of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once excess advance tax and TDS are adjusted with tax liability arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), it loses the character of advance tax and TDS and becomes tax paid on regular assessment and thus, the proviso to section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri

244A of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once excess advance tax and TDS are adjusted with tax liability arising out of order passed u/s 143(1) or 143(3), it loses the character of advance tax and TDS and becomes tax paid on regular assessment and thus, the proviso to section

ECONOMIC LAWS PRACTICE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)59, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS under section 201(1A) of the Act is to be computed based on calendar months without having regard to the fact that the provisions of section 201(1A) of the Act does not specifically prescribe the term 'calendar month'. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner has grossly erred in law in interpreting

UTI MUTUAL FUND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, TRACES, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2295/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Uti Mutual Fund, Dcit, Centralised Gn Block, Uti Tower, Processing Cell-Tds, Bandra Complex, Traces, V. Bandra (E), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400051 Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Up- 201010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatu1088L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Krupa Gandhi Revenue By: Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being

TDS default has been laid out. 2.7 The decision rendered in the case of CIT vs Arvind Mills Limited (supra) was in the context of section 244A

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

section 244A? In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of the tax paid by the assessee for which the assessee was granted Refund, namely TDS

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. ()

Section 244A? In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of the tax paid by the assessee for which the assessee was granted refund, namely TDS

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. ()

Section 244A? In the present case, as stated above, there are two components of the tax paid by the assessee for which the assessee was granted refund, namely TDS

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 244A of the Act. 7. It will be useful to reproduce paragraph 2 of the circular 11/2016 (F.No.279/MISC./M-140/2015-ITJ] dated 26.4.2016 that Mr Gandhi tendered. It reads as under: "2. The issue of eligibility for interest on refund of excess TDS

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

section 244A(1) of the Act covers interest on refund arising on account of tax paid by way of advance tax, TDS

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

244A(1) would be assessable in the year in which it is granted and not in the year in which proceedings under section 143(1)(a) attain finality. 16. The matter will now go to the regular Bench for decision on merits.” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. 4. We note that the CIT(A) has decided the issue in the following manner

BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 244A of the Act on TDS amount of Rs.1,31,76,602/- for the period from May 2007 to June