The Director of Income-tax (IT)-1 Mumbai v. Deutsche Bank AG
[Citation -2014-LL-1119-69]

Citation 2014-LL-1119-69
Appellant Name The Director of Income-tax (IT)-1 Mumbai
Respondent Name Deutsche Bank AG
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/11/2014
Assessment Year 2001-02
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law • interest on tax • grant interest
Bot Summary: 4 An Appeal was filed by the respondent from the order of Assessing Officer before the CIT(A). By order dated 19 February 2010, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal holding that in terms of Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act, assessee is entitled to interest on tax paid on self assessment under Section 140A of the Act. 5 The Revenue being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, placed reliance on the decisions of ACIT Vs Sandoz Ltd. and ACIT Vs Navartis India Ltd. A.Y.1999-00), wherein it has been held that in any other case would certainly include cases where tax has been paid by way of self assessment. 6 It is agreed by counsel that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT, rendered on 17 November 2014. In the above order it has been held that Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act would oblige the revenue to pay interest even on refunds arising from the tax paid by way of an self assessment under Section 140A of the Act. 7 In view of the decision of this Court Stock Holding Corporation, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.


4.itxa.143.2012.doc dik IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2012 Director of Income Tax (IT)-1 Mumbai Appellant. vs M/s Deutsche Bank AG Respondent Mr Tejveer Singh for Appellant. Mr Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr B.D.Damodar i/b Kanga & Co. for Respondent. CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ. NOVEMBER 19, 2014 P.C. : This appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is from order dated 15 June 2011 passed by Income Tax Tribunal ( for short ITAT ), dismissing Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2001- 02. 2 following question has been raised by Revenue for our consideration: Whether, on facts and circumstances of case and in law Tribunal was justified in upholding decision of CIT (A) of granting interest under section 244A on self- assessment tax paid by Assessee? 3 Respondent Assessee became entitled to refund for A.Y. 2001-02 consequent to order passed in appeal by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT(A) ). However, Assessing Officer while Pg 1 of 2 Uploaded on - 27/11/2014 Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 11:44:18 4.itxa.143.2012.doc passing order giving effect to order of CIT(A) did not grant interest due to Petitioner on amount refunded attributable to tax paid on self assessment under Section 140A of Act. 4 Appeal was filed by respondent from order of Assessing Officer before CIT(A). By order dated 19 February 2010, CIT(A) allowed appeal holding that in terms of Section 244A(1)(b) of Act, assessee is entitled to interest on tax paid on self assessment under Section 140A of Act. 5 Revenue being aggrieved by order of CIT(A) filed appeal to Tribunal. Tribunal while dismissing appeal of Revenue, placed reliance on decisions of ACIT Vs Sandoz Ltd. (ITA 2863/M/05) (A.Y.2000- 01) (dated 15 May 2006) and ACIT Vs Navartis India Ltd. (ITA No.4767/Mum/2005) A.Y.1999-00) (dated 16 August 2005), wherein it has been held that in any other case would certainly include cases where tax has been paid by way of self assessment. 6 It is agreed by counsel that issue is no longer res integra in view of decision of this Court in case of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT, rendered on 17 November 2014. In above order it has been held that Section 244A(1)(b) of Act would oblige revenue to pay interest even on refunds arising from tax paid by way of self assessment under Section 140A of Act. 7 In view of decision of this Court Stock Holding Corporation (supra), no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 8 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.C.GUPTE J. ) ( M.S.SANKLECHA J. ) Pg 2 of 2 Uploaded on - 27/11/2014 Downloaded on - 15/04/2020 11:44:18 Director of Income-tax (IT)-1 Mumbai v. Deutsche Bank AG
Report Error