ACIFFT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment and re-computation. Entire section 153 was substituted for the original by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f 1st June 2016. Subsection [5] of Section 153 of the Act reads as under : "[5] Where effect of an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RANGE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment and re-computation. Entire section 153 was substituted for the original by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f 1st June 2016. Subsection [5] of Section 153 of the Act reads as under : "[5] Where effect of an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment and re-computation. Entire section 153 was substituted for the original by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f 1st June 2016. Subsection [5] of Section 153 of the Act reads as under : "[5] Where effect of an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given

ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment and re-computation. Entire section 153 was substituted for the original by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f 1st June 2016. Subsection [5] of Section 153 of the Act reads as under : "[5] Where effect of an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RANGE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment and re-computation. Entire section 153 was substituted for the original by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f 1st June 2016. Subsection [5] of Section 153 of the Act reads as under : "[5] Where effect of an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given

DCIT, CIR-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SICOM LIMITED, MUMBAI CITY

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalita Nos. 2034 & 2035/Mum/2023 (A.Y:1999-2000 &1998-99) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(1), Vs. M/S Sicom Limited, Room No.609, Solitaire Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, Park, Building No.4, M.K. Road, Guru Nanak Marg, Mumbai-400020. Chakala, Midc S.O, Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs5524J Appellant .. Respondent

244A(1A) of the Act are reproduced below for your Honour's reference: "(1A) In a case where a refund arises as a result of g1vmg effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

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

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 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

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 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

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 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

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 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

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 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

reassessment made under section 147, either originally or in consequences of appellate order with a view to giving effect to the direction contained therein, objecting to the amount of interest payable by the government u/s 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

244A. (1) Where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the following manner, namely :— (a) where the refund is out of any tax collected at source under section 206C or paid

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

Bench: Us :-

244A(1) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the said provisions are reproduced below:- (1A) In a case where a refund arises as a result of giving effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh

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

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:

244A which is as follows: “(1A) In a case where a refund arises as a result of giving effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

DCIT 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. CEAT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, and departmental appeal is treated as infructuous

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit-6(2)(1) M/S. Ceat Ltd. Room No.563, Aaykar Bhawan Rpg House, 463 M.K.Road, Churchgate Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030

244A(1) granted to the assessee in the proceedings under section 143(1)(a) 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.” 68. Therefore, while upholding in principle that the amount is to be taxed in the year of granting the refund

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

section 140A(1), then justice, fairness, equity and good conscience demands that same method should be followed while making adjustment for refund of taxes, especially when no contrary provision has been provided. Under these circumstances and aforesaid discussion, we find that the judicial proprietary demands that order of the Tribunal of earlier years must be followed and therefore we direct

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

section 140A(1), then justice, fairness, equity and good conscience demands that same method should be followed while making adjustment for refund of taxes, especially when no contrary provision has been provided. Under these circumstances and aforesaid discussion, we find that the judicial proprietary demands that order of the Tribunal of earlier years must be followed and therefore we direct