What is the leading case on Section 244A of the Income Tax Act?

ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (117 ITD 169) is the decision most relied on for Section 244A, cited in 151 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 244A?

ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (117 ITD 169) — 151 citing judgments; Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT (195 ITR 682) — 131 citing judgments; CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation (247 ITR 268) — 124 citing judgments; Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT (382 ITR 179) — 122 citing judgments; DDIT v. Savvis Communication Corporation (69 Taxmann.com 106) — 107 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 244A?

BharatTax indexes 1,186 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 244A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.437

Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 437 (Interest on refunds) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 437 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 244A is ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. (117 ITD 169), cited in 151 of the 1,186 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 244A

ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd.

117 ITD 169 · 2009 · ITAT

151

citing judgments

Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. v. CIT

195 ITR 682 · 1992 · High Court

131

citing judgments

Club membership fees, including both entrance fees and annual subscriptions, are not considered capital expenditure if the membership's continuance depends on regular payments, and therefore are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1).

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation

247 ITR 268 · 2001 · Supreme Court

124

citing judgments

Income earned during the project construction stage, which has a direct nexus or is inextricably linked to the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt not liable to tax and reduces the project cost.

Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT

382 ITR 179 · 2016 · High Court

122

citing judgments

Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is allowable even if no tax is paid in India on the corresponding income due to deductions under sections 10A or 10AA, or losses in other units. The scope of income eligible for deduction under Section 10AA includes interest on deposits and realized gains on forward contracts.

DDIT v. Savvis Communication Corporation

69 Taxmann.com 106 · 2016 · ITAT

107

citing judgments

Payments for web hosting services, including data back-up, maintenance, security, and uninterrupted services, are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, as they do not constitute 'consideration for use of, or right to use, scientific equipment'.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, Range10(2), Mumbai

234 CTR 1 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income not forming part of the total income is not deductible under Section 14A(1). The disallowance must be restricted to direct and indirect expenses having an approximate connection with the earning of such exempt income, and Rule 8D applies from Assessment Year 2008-09.

Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT

280 ITR 643 · 2006 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Assessees are entitled to compensation for the inordinate delay by the Income Tax Department in refunding excess tax, which includes interest on the statutory interest due under section 244A for such delayed refunds.

Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.

363 ITR 658 · 2014 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Department has a moral and legal obligation to refund excess tax collected from taxpayers, along with interest. An assessee is entitled to interest on the amount of taxes refunded, including interest on interest, as per Section 244A of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Dinesh Kumar Goel

331 ITR 10 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Income is recognized when it is absolutely ascertained, determined, and specified, conferring an exclusive right of receipt upon the assessee, irrespective of the accounting period.

Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT

156 ITR 509 · 1985 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A partner's contribution of a personal asset to a partnership firm does not amount to a "transfer" for capital gains purposes under the Income-tax Act, as the consideration (the partner's interest in the firm) is indeterminate, and the computational machinery for capital gains fails.

Judgments on Section 244A

DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 6511/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6511/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit (It)-2(1)(2) बिधम/ Deutsche Bank Ag Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, 5Th Floor Nicholas Piramal Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Peninsula Corporate Park, Point, Mumbai-400021. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower, Parel, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1390F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/Niraj Sheth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -56, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2006- 07. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Interest Amount To Rs.4,10,15,246/- Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act Without Appreciating That Levy Of Interest U/S 220(2) Is Independent Section & Liable On All Outstanding Dues & A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (DR)

Section 220Section 220(2)Section 244A

Alok Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-70(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 4806/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 244ASection 68

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2066/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11] Ge Capital Services India Vs. The Dy. C.I.T 401& 402, 4Th Floor, Circle - 10(1) Aggarwal Millennium Tower, New Delhi E-1, 2, 3 Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aaacg 0239 L [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234DSection 244A

Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kol - 4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 244ASection 263

M/S.Abad Fisheries, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 120/COCH/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 May 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10BSection 143Section 249Section 4Section 80H

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7620/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7620/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. Shiv PrakashFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari, DR

Section 140ASection 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

M/S Saint -Gobain India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2295/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita. No.2295/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saint-Gobain India Private Vs. Dcit, Limited Circle-6(1)(1), (For The Merged Entity Saint-Gobain Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Crystals & Detectors India Limited) Road, 6Th Block, 171/2, Maruthi Indl. Estate Koramangala, Hoodi Rajapalya, Whitefield Bangalore – 560095. Main Road, Bangalore – 560001. Pan: Aaacb 6794 R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Shri Sharatha Rao For Revenue : Smt Renuga Devi, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2019 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm. The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-6, Bangalore, Dated 31/01/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 250 Of The It Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That There Is A Delay Of 65 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. Ld Ar Drawn Our Attention To The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee, Explaining The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Sharatha RaoFor Respondent: Smt Renuga Devi, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 250

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 4754/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Circle 2, Vs. M/S. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 19BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Siemens Power Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 4751/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Circle 2, Vs. M/S. Siemens Power Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. Sector 18, Maruti Industry Area, Gurgaon.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 19BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 883/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri C Naresh, AR

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 629/MUM/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri C Naresh, AR

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211Section 250

M/S. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5487/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 244A

Shri Vikas Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 140/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri K. C. Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 144CSection 234Section 244A

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3613/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2012-13 The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Acit, Circle 62(1) 1916, Chuna Mandi Vs. E Block Pahar Ganj Civic Centre New Delhi 110 055 New Delhi 110 002 Pan: Aaatt0361M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142Section 14ASection 244A

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. at & T Communication Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1779/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Poonam Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bara, CIT DR

Section 153(1)Section 40