Section 245

What a section 245 notice is

Set-off of Refund against Demand. Your refund is being adjusted against an old demand. It is a medium-severity notice in the recovery family under the Income Tax Act 1961.

If you ignore it: Refund is adjusted. Recovering it afterwards is far harder.

Time to reply: commonly stated as 30 days from the date of the notice — but the date printed on your own notice governs, and it overrides any general figure. Check whether the underlying demand is itself disputed or already deleted — a very common win.

Under the Income Tax Act 2025: section 438. But read that as reference, not as the provision to cite. Under s.536(2) of the 2025 Act, a proceeding for any tax year beginning before 1 April 2026 stays under the Income Tax Act 1961 from the notice through to the appeal — so a notice arriving today for an earlier year is a 1961 Act matter, whatever today's date is.

Section 245 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 245, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Vodafone Idea Ltd v ACIT Supreme CourtHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  My refund is being held back because scrutiny is pending. Can the officer simply sit on it?
  Not for AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23 without doing the statutory paperwork first. Section 241A required the Assessing Officer to separately record satisfaction that granting the refund would adversely affect the revenue, and to obtain the PCIT's previous approval with reasons in writing. On these facts the Court found that those steps had been taken — satisfaction recorded, approval obtained, order passed in time — so the withholding was upheld and the appeal was dismissed; the ₹733 crores the Court directed flowed from the final assessment order under s.143(3) for AY 2014-15, not from any failure under s.241A, and even that direction was made subject to any proceedings the Revenue might initiate, including set-off under s.245. For years before AY 2017-18 s.143(1D) governed, and issue of a s.143(2) notice was itself enough to hold back the refund until assessment was complete. Section 241A ceased to apply from 1 April 2023 (Finance Act 2023); for AY 2023-24 onwards the equivalent power, in the same terms, is s.245(2).
• Vodafone Idea Ltd v ACIT (Delhi HC, 2026) High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Tribunal allowed my appeal, the Assessing Officer has passed the appeal effect order and worked out the refund, but the CPC will not pay because the portal shows an outstanding demand on my PAN and on my group TANs. Is that lawful?
  No. Once an appellate authority (or the Assessing Officer giving effect to its order) finds an amount refundable, that becomes a vested and crystallised right, and the Assessing Officer or the CPC cannot withhold a rupee of it except by an order actually passed under section 245. Where the Revenue could not produce any such order, the Delhi High Court held that refusing the refund because of demands standing against the assessee's PAN and sister TANs was untenable in law, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A, and directed payment of Rs 53,09,56,470 with interest under sections 244A and 244A(1A) by a fixed date, with a further 1 per cent per month if the date was missed.
• Manohar Ramabtar Jhunjhunwala v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My employer deducted tax but never deposited it, so the credit was denied on processing, a demand now sits on the portal and my later years' refunds are being eaten by it. Do I get the credit and the refund, or only a promise that nobody will recover from me?
  You get the credit and the refund, not merely a bar on recovery. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, hearing a batch of such petitions with the assistance of an amicus, held that where an assessee establishes that tax was in fact deducted at source, the Department must grant appropriate TDS credit and cannot recover the corresponding amount from the deductee directly or indirectly, that the consequential relief including refund must follow, and that pending disposal of a credit application the demand must be marked in the system as stayed or not recoverable so that no coercive recovery or refund adjustment takes place.
• P. S. Srijan Height Developers v ACIT High CourtCuts both waysHigh Courts differ
  The CPC gave me a section 245 intimation saying I had 21 days to respond, then adjusted my whole refund the very next day against a demand for a year that is under appeal. What do I actually get back, and do I get interest?
  You get back everything adjusted in excess of 20 per cent of the disputed demand, but on these facts you get no interest on it. The Calcutta High Court held that adjusting the refund one day after issuing a 21-day section 245 intimation was a clear breach of the power to adjust and an abject violation of the law governing section 245, and directed refund of the excess over 20 per cent within eight weeks — but refused interest because the assessee had waited about two years before coming to court, and refused to touch an earlier adjustment made three years before the writ petition on the ground of laches.
• Huawei Telecommunications India P Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  There is interim protection against recovery for that year. Can the department still adjust my refund?
  No. Adjustment of a refund against a demand may itself amount to a coercive measure, so doing it for years already covered by interim protection is not a neutral accounting entry. For the year where no prior s.245 notice or intimation had been issued at all, the mandatory procedure had simply not been followed. The adjustment was quashed and the refund ordered released with applicable interest within eight weeks.
• Ansaldo Energia SPA v DCIT High CourtCuts both waysHigh Courts differ
  Can I get section 244A interest on the amounts the department adjusted against my Vivad se Vishwas liability, or refunded to me under the scheme?
  No. The Madras High Court held that the Explanation to section 7 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 expressly denies a declarant interest under section 244A on the excess amount refunded, and that section 7 is a complete code — if the case is to be settled under the Act, no section 244A interest is available. Two of the four writ petitions were dismissed and the batch disposed of with directions.
• Avana Global FZCO v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund was simply taken against another year's demand and I was never told. Does the notice have to come first?
  Yes. Section 245(1) permits a set-off only after an intimation in writing of the proposed action. The Bombay High Court held that adjustments made without that intimation are contrary to the words of the statute and to its own settled decisions, made the rule absolute and ordered the refunds paid within four weeks. It also noted that no reasons had been recorded under s.245(2) either.
• Genpact India P Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund came out of an appeal effect order and was paid years late. Can the department refuse the extra interest by blaming its own portal?
  No. Where the refund arises from giving effect to an appellate order, the additional interest is statutory. It can be refused only in the one situation the Act allows, namely delay attributable to the assessee. A broken departmental portal, an amalgamation the department was told about, and the pandemic are not delays attributable to the assessee.
• Jindal Stainless Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My appeal is pending. Can the department take my whole refund against the disputed demand, or only twenty per cent of it?
  Ordinarily only twenty per cent. Where an appeal against the demand is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Board's Office Memorandum of 29 February 2016 as amended on 31 July 2017 permits adjustment of not more than twenty per cent of the disputed demand. Anything above that can be retained only if the case falls within the narrow exception in para 4B(a), and the department has to show that it does.
• Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v ADIT High CourtHelps taxpayerJudgment not reachable
  Does a stay granted under s.220(6) lapse after six months, freeing the department to adjust your refund?
  No. A stay under s.220(6) operates until the appeal is disposed of. Combined with the missing prior intimation under s.245, the adjustment was quashed and Rs 211.42 crore was ordered refunded with interest.
• Sanjay Sudan v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  My employer deducted TDS but never deposited it. The department has raised a demand on me and set my later refund off against it. Can it do that?
  No. s.205 bars a direct demand on the person from whose income the tax was deducted, and the Court held that adjusting a later year's refund against that demand is an indirect recovery of the same tax. The demand notice and the adjustment were quashed and the refund directed to be released.
• Rajendra Kumar v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The CPC has adjusted my entire refund against a demand that is under appeal. Do I have to file a separate stay application before I can complain?
  No. The Rajasthan High Court held that nowhere in section 220(6) is it specified that a stay application has to be filed; once an appeal under section 246A has been filed within time and in the prescribed form, the assessee is not to be treated as an assessee in default. Adjusting the whole refund suo motu, without the intimation and opportunity that section 245 requires, was held to be de hors sections 245 and 220(6) and outside the recovery machinery of sections 222 and 223. The Court directed refund, with statutory interest, of everything adjusted beyond twenty per cent of the disputed demand.
• Jet Privilege Pvt Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Your refund was adjusted against an old demand. Did they have to tell you first?
  Yes, and beforehand. Intimation under s.245 must be given before the set-off is effected — not at the same time, and not afterwards. Failure to do so made the adjustment wholly illegal, and the refund was ordered with interest.
• Tata Communications Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Your refund was adjusted against demands that were already stayed. Is that lawful?
  No. Section 245 requires previous intimation of the proposed adjustment, not simultaneous intimation — and the demands adjusted were covered by subsisting stay orders. The full refund was ordered paid within four weeks.
• GE Capital Mauritius Overseas Investments v DCIT High CourtHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  The s.241A order gives detailed reasons I say are legally wrong. Will the High Court quash it in a writ?
  Usually not. The Delhi High Court dismissed this petition, holding that in a challenge to a s.241A order the writ court will not determine the tax liability that the pending scrutiny is meant to determine. Its scrutiny is confined to whether there is any basis at all for the opinion that granting the refund would adversely affect the revenue; only in a gross case, where nothing at all controverts the return, will it quash the order. The year was AY 2018-19 and the provision was s.241A, which ceased to apply from 1 April 2023; for AY 2023-24 onwards the withholding power is s.245(2), and this reasoning about the limits of writ review reads across to an order under that provision.
• Vrinda Sharad Bal v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  CPC keeps adjusting my refunds against a demand that is under appeal, and says the Centralised Processing Scheme requires it. Does that scheme override the CBDT's stay instructions?
  No. Clause 10 of the Centralised Processing of Return of Income Scheme, 2011 cannot be read in isolation; the power to set off a refund against an outstanding demand is circumscribed by the provisions of the Act and by the CBDT's subsisting instructions, circulars and office memoranda. The Court restrained recovery beyond what those instructions permit and directed that the excess already recovered be returned with interest, and that refunds not be adjusted until the appeal is decided.
• Tata Communications Ltd v Dy CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund was adjusted against an old demand and I was never told first. Is that adjustment valid?
  No. Section 245 permits set-off only after an intimation in writing of the proposed action, and that requirement is a mandate, not a courtesy. A letter dated more than a year before the adjustment could not be used to deviate from it, so an adjustment of Rs. 58,07,58,796 for AY 2016-17 was quashed — with liberty to the officer to issue a fresh s.245 notice and start again properly.
• Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My employer deducted tax from my salary but never paid it over. Can the department recover it from me and adjust my refunds?
  No. The Gujarat High Court held that the department cannot deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer, and directed that credit be given for the relevant years. It followed its own Division Bench decision in Sumit Devendra Rajani, which construed section 205 and agreed with the Bombay and Gauhati High Courts that where the deductee produces Form 16A the credit must be given and a demand cannot be sustained. Any recovery or adjustment already made out of later years' refunds was to be returned with statutory interest. The department remains free to recover the tax from the deductor.
• Vijay Singh Kadan v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The department adjusted my refund first and issued the s.245 notice afterwards. Does the later notice fix it?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that a notice issued after the adjustment cannot correct the fatal error of not giving the notice the section makes mandatory. It also rejected the department's description of what it had done as mere withholding pending verification, where the demand said to need verification was itself under appeal with a stay application pending, and ordered the withheld amount paid with statutory interest.
• Court On Its Own Motion v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  CPC has refused my TDS credit and adjusted the refund against an old demand. What did the Delhi High Court actually direct?
  Taking up the problem on its own motion, the Delhi High Court issued directions on both limbs. A TDS claim supported by the deductor's certificate is not to be rejected merely because the uploaded information does not tally, and unmatched challans are to be verified and corrected within a fixed time. And s.245 is a two-stage provision: prior intimation of the proposed adjustment, a reply from the assessee, consideration of that reply by the Assessing Officer, an order under s.245, and communication of the outcome. A computerised set-off without that sequence does not comply with the section.
• Nishith M. Desai v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  You can afford to pay. Does that mean the stay must be refused?
  The stay was granted, but not on the ground the entry previously gave. The Court held that the power to stay recovery is a judicial power and that the authorities owe a duty of fairness. On the facts — a demand twice reduced on rectification, arguable submissions on each of the three additions still to be considered in appeal, and Rs 78 lakh of the demand already met by adjustment of a refund — the Commissioner ought to have considered more carefully whether a stay was warranted, and recovery of the balance of Rs 40.54 lakh was stayed pending the appeal.
• Section 84 of the Black Money Act - the Income-tax Act provisions applied CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Which provisions of the Income-tax Act apply to the Black Money Act, and can the officer borrow one that is not on the list?
  Section 84 applies a closed list: clauses (c) and (d) of s.90(1), clauses (c) and (d) of s.90A(1), ss.119, 133, 134, 135 and 138, the whole of Chapter XV, and ss.237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284 of the Income-tax Act, with necessary modifications, as if they referred to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax. The list is expressed as an enumeration and the decided points located in this area turn on what is left out of it. Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are not on it, which is why the Chennai Bench in Pascal Postel held that the interest charge in s.40(2) has no advance-tax machinery to operate on; s.230 is not on it either, which is the omission on which Preetha Krishna (Madras High Court) is understood to turn, though no copy of that judgment was opened for this note.
• CBDT Office Memoranda of 1 June 2015 and 11 March 2016 — TDS credit mismatch CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  Is there anything binding on the assessing officer that stops him enforcing a demand caused by my deductor's failure to deposit?
  Yes. The Board told field officers in terms that s.205 bars a direct demand where tax has been deducted from the assessee's income, and that a demand on account of tax credit mismatch cannot be enforced coercively. It had to say it twice — the 2016 Office Memorandum was issued because officers were not following the 2015 letter.
• CBDT Instruction No. 12/2013 on adjustment of refunds CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  Is there a departmental instruction I can quote when CPC adjusts my refund without notice?
  Yes. Instruction No. 12/2013 dated 9 September 2013 directs that the provisions of s.245 be strictly adhered to before any adjustment of refund is made. It follows the Delhi High Court's directions in Court On Its Own Motion v. UOI, W.P.(C) 2659/2012 dated 14 March 2013, and requires prior intimation, an opportunity to the assessee to respond, examination of that response by the Assessing Officer, and communication of the final adjustment, with the Assessing Officer to respond to CPC within 45 days of the communication.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.