GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

2 to 2.2 raised the Assessee are allowed. 8. Ground No. 3. “3. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing the liability of Rs. 1,74,35,896/- towards year-end expenses applying provision of section

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

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 due in which event, even if there is substantial delay in interest payable, the assessee can be made to wait unendingly without payment of interest. Though, before the Assessing

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

244A Rs.16,43,50,232/-, which was subsequently restricted to Rs.12,20,33,651/-. It is undisputed that the assessee after finalization of interest amount in proceedings u/s. 154 has not filed revised return of income, nevertheless the assessee in computation of income by way of Note No.2 has mentioned that in case interest amount is reduced or withdrawn, subsequently

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

2 with respect to the action of the Assessing Officer considering total turnover including taxes duties as against total turnover excluding taxes and duties while working out deduction under section 80HHC from the book profit. 3.(a) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting interest under section 244A

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

2 with respect to the action of the Assessing Officer considering total turnover including taxes duties as against total turnover excluding taxes and duties while working out deduction under section 80HHC from the book profit. 3.(a) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting interest under section 244A

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Act 1. The CIT(A) erred in not grating interest u/s 244A on refund of Rs. 7,37,94,900/-for the period from the regular assessment u/s 143(3) i.e. 29-12-2017 till actual grant of refund amount. 2. The CIT(A) erred in invoking proviso to 244A(1)(a) to deny

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Act 1. The CIT(A) erred in not grating interest u/s 244A on refund of Rs. 7,37,94,900/-for the period from the regular assessment u/s 143(3) i.e. 29-12-2017 till actual grant of refund amount. 2. The CIT(A) erred in invoking proviso to 244A(1)(a) to deny

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Act 1. The CIT(A) erred in not grating interest u/s 244A on refund of Rs. 7,37,94,900/-for the period from the regular assessment u/s 143(3) i.e. 29-12-2017 till actual grant of refund amount. 2. The CIT(A) erred in invoking proviso to 244A(1)(a) to deny

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Act 1. The CIT(A) erred in not grating interest u/s 244A on refund of Rs. 7,37,94,900/-for the period from the regular assessment u/s 143(3) i.e. 29-12-2017 till actual grant of refund amount. 2. The CIT(A) erred in invoking proviso to 244A(1)(a) to deny

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Act 1. The CIT(A) erred in not grating interest u/s 244A on refund of Rs. 7,37,94,900/-for the period from the regular assessment u/s 143(3) i.e. 29-12-2017 till actual grant of refund amount. 2. The CIT(A) erred in invoking proviso to 244A(1)(a) to deny

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

section 244A(1)(b) of the Act 1. The CIT(A) erred in not grating interest u/s 244A on refund of Rs. 7,37,94,900/-for the period from the regular assessment u/s 143(3) i.e. 29-12-2017 till actual grant of refund amount. 2. The CIT(A) erred in invoking proviso to 244A(1)(a) to deny

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(2) is clearly not attracted. The proceeding resulting in the refund was not delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee. Though the TDS

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

2. The learned Commissioner has erred in law in concluding that interest on late payment of 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

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 and not in the context of 201(1A) of the Act which applies to the case under consideration. It deserves consideration that section 244A(1) refers to month or part of the month

DCIT- 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244A of the Act of INR 37,78,627 ought to be allowed.” 3. Ground No.1 of grounds of appeal is general in nature and need no adjudication. 4. Ground No.2 of grounds of appeal is relating to disallowance of reimbursement of demurrage charges of the current assessment year of ₹.2

TOTAL OIL INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Leela Galleria Circle – 11(3)(1) Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaace2175M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 244A of the Act of INR 37,78,627 ought to be allowed.” 3. Ground No.1 of grounds of appeal is general in nature and need no adjudication. 4. Ground No.2 of grounds of appeal is relating to disallowance of reimbursement of demurrage charges of the current assessment year of ₹.2

ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INT) TAX CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

2. The impugned assessment order is time barred, being passed after the time limit provided under section 153 of the Act. That it is settled position of law, that section 144C and section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and the overall time limit to complete the assessment is circumscribed by section 153 of the Act. GST amount cannot

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