Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Dcit 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs M/S. Small Industries Development Bank ... on 22 August, 2023 cites

Addl Cit Rg 8(2), Mumbai vs Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai on 31 December, 2021

06. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The solitary issue before us in this appeal is that when the refund is issued to the assessee, the interest under section 244A of the Act is required to be Page | 4 ITA No. 1813/Mum/2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India; A.Y. 07-08 computed up to the date on which the refund order is received by the assessee. This is the mandate of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Pfizer Ltd (supra) and also in case of Citi bank (supra). Further, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 the coordinate bench has given the direction based on the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Therefore, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in directing the learned Assessing Officer to grant interest to the assessee under section 244A of the Act, up to the date of receipt of refund order. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessing officer are dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Cir 7(2)(2), Mumbai on 26 October, 2018

Several reminders letters were also addressed to the Assessing Officer. However, the learned Assessing Officer is required to pass an order under section 154 of the Act within a period of six months from the end of the month in which application was made. But the learned Assessing Officer did not Page | 3 ITA No. 1813/Mum/2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India; A.Y. 07-08 pass any order of rectification either accepting or refusing the claim of the assessee and therefore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) seeking the above relief. The learned CIT (A) after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pfizer Ltd in 191 ITR 626 (Bom) and the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Novartis India Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1249/Mum/2010 dated 18th March, 2011 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CITI bank Vs. CIT in ITA No. 6 of 2001 dated 17th July, 2003 held that assessee is entitled for interest up to the date when the Pay Order is actually received by the assessee pursuant to the order sanctioning the refund. Even, in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 in ITA No. 3707/Mum/2012 dated 15th September, 2017 identical directions were given. In view of all those judgments the learned CIT (A) held that he finds merit in the claim of the assessee by holding that interest under section 244A of the Act is to be allowed up to the date of receipt of refund order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1