Refunds, Interest & Condonation

Refunds, Interest & Condonation — the law in short

Every authority in this library on refunds, interest & condonation, with what each one decided.

• CBDT v Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The CBDT rejected my condonation application without dealing with my reasons. Can I challenge that?
  Yes. A rejection that does not properly consider the reasons advanced and the documents filed is not a proper exercise of the s.119(2)(b) power. Where the delay was demonstrably beyond the assessee's control — prolonged promoter-investor litigation — the High Court was entitled to set the rejection aside and direct that the application be allowed, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP.
• 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).
• UOI v Tata Chemicals Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I deducted tax under s.195 because the officer told me to, and the CIT(A) has now held it was not deductible. Do I get interest on the refund, or only the tax back?
  Yes, interest as well. The resident deductor is entitled not only to the refund of the tax deposited under s.195(2) but to have it refunded with interest from the date of payment of the tax. The Revenue was the appellant and its appeals were dismissed. The CBDT has since accepted the position by circular.
• Chironjilal Sharma HUF v Union of India Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  Cash seized in a search was appropriated against a tax liability that the Tribunal later knocked out. The Department has paid me interest from the date of the assessment to the date of refund. Am I entitled to anything for the years before the assessment?
  Yes. The Supreme Court held that section 132B(4) governs the pre-assessment period in search and seizure matters while sections 240 and 244A govern the post-assessment period as per the order in appeal, and that there is no conflict between them — so interest for the pre-assessment period under section 132B(4) is payable in addition to, and not in substitution for, the interest already paid on the refund. On the provision as it then stood the assessee was held entitled to simple interest at 15 per cent per annum from the day after six months from the section 132(5) order to the date of the last regular assessment.
• CIT v Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  The department owes me s.244A interest and has sat on it. Can I claim interest on that interest?
  No. Only the interest the statute itself provides may be claimed from the Revenue, and no other interest on that statutory interest. This is the three-Judge Bench asked to reconsider Sandvik Asia — and it did not overrule it: it held that Sandvik Asia had been misquoted and misinterpreted by assessees and by the Revenue alike.
• CIT v Tulsyan NEC Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer computed interest under s.234B and s.234C first and only then gave me credit for MAT under s.115JAA. My refund has turned into a demand. Is that the right order?
  No. MAT credit admissible under s.115JAA must be set off against the tax payable before interest under s.234B and s.234C is calculated, not after. The right to the set-off crystallises when the tax under s.115JA (now s.115JB) is paid and does not depend on any determination by the Assessing Officer, so an assessee may take the credit into account even when estimating advance tax on its current income.
• Sandvik Asia Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Can I still rely on Sandvik Asia to claim interest on the interest due on my refund?
  No — and the entry that used to say so was wrong. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals (18 September 2013), sitting on a reference that doubted this decision, did NOT overrule it. It held that this decision had been "misquoted and misinterpreted by the assessees and also by the Revenue" alike, and that what this Court had actually done was direct the Revenue to pay compensation for an inordinate delay of twelve to seventeen years — "not an interest on interest". So: this decision stands. What does not stand is the reading of it as authority for compounding interest on statutory interest under s.244A.
• CIT v Shelly Products Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  My assessment was annulled by the Tribunal and the department cannot make a fresh one. Do I get back everything I paid, including the tax on my own returned income?
  No, not everything. The Supreme Court held that liability to income tax under section 4(1) does not depend on an assessment being made, and that the return itself is an admission of the tax due on the income disclosed. So where an assessment is annulled or set aside and no fresh assessment can be made, the assessee gets a refund of everything paid in excess of the tax chargeable on the returned income, but the department may keep the tax referable to that returned income. Retaining it does not offend Article 265.
• M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd v The First Income Tax Officer - no s.220(2) interest where the original demand was paid on time Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I paid the original demand in full, got a refund when I won in appeal, and repaid on a fresh demand after losing in reference. The department now wants s.220(2) interest for the period in between. Must I pay it?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the condition precedent for s.220(2) is a notice of demand under s.156 AND a default in paying the amount demanded within the time allowed. Where the assessee satisfied the original demand promptly and later satisfied the fresh demand promptly, there was no default at any point, and s.220(2) cannot be invoked for the period during which the refunded money was in his hands.
• A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  We paid tax on each voyage under section 172(4) and then elected under section 172(7) for a regular assessment, which came out much lower and produced a refund. The Department has refunded the tax but refused interest, saying what we paid was not advance tax. Is that right?
  No. Section 172(7) creates a legal fiction by which the payments already made under s.172(4) are treated as a payment in advance of the tax leviable for that assessment year, and the Supreme Court held that in construing that fiction all the consequences flowing from it must be assumed. The ad hoc assessment under s.172(4) is superseded and a regular assessment is made as per the provisions of the Act, so all the provisions of the Act relating to advance tax apply, and on excess payment the assessee is entitled to the excess and to interest on it.
• Modi Industries Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  My assessment was reduced in appeal and more advance tax turned out to be excess. Does section 214 interest run to the date of the revised assessment?
  No. The Supreme Court, resolving a conflict that had divided almost every High Court, read regular assessment in section 214 as the first assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer under section 143 or section 144. Interest under section 214(1) therefore runs from 1 April following the financial year to the date of that first assessment, and the excess is measured against the tax determined by it, not against the tax as reduced later in appeal or revision. Excess tax thrown up by an appellate or revisional order is dealt with by the refund provisions instead, in particular section 244(1A).
• 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.
• Kern Enterprise Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My client's New Zealand company filed Indian returns and paid tax believing its place of effective management was in India, and New Zealand has since taxed the same income. Can it get the Indian tax back?
  Yes, on these facts. The Madras High Court quashed the order refusing rectification and refund, holding that CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2017 — under which section 6(3)(ii) does not apply to a company with turnover or gross receipts of Rs 50 crore or less in a financial year — is binding on the Department, so the company was not liable to Indian tax at all and the tax it had paid ought to have been refunded, with the Court adding that tax paid in excess must be refunded notwithstanding the procedure in section 155(14A) where the income was taxed in a foreign country.
• Hosur Bata Employees Union v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  My clients settled a wage dispute and took VRS and compensation for loss of future salary in two instalments. The company deducted TDS on the whole amount without giving s.89 relief. Can we make the employer refund it?
  No — not from the employer. The Madras High Court held that the employer cannot be found at fault for deducting tax at source in the absence of an application in Form 10E under Rule 21A, because s.192(2A) is what obliges the employer to compute and give s.89 relief and it operates only on the particulars the employee furnishes. The Court's remedy was to direct the employees to file returns under s.139(1) within thirty days and the Income Tax Officer to process them under s.143(1) and refund within two months.
• Bedmutha Industries Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer refused me s.244A interest for the years the refund sat unpaid, saying my bank details were wrong. Can he do that on his own?
  No. Section 244A(2) allows a period to be excluded only where a question arises as to the period to be excluded, and that question must be decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or Commissioner — the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to decide it and deny interest on that basis. Further, the delay contemplated by s.244A(2) is delay in the proceedings resulting in the refund, meaning the s.143(1) intimation and the s.143(3) assessment, not administrative delay in remitting a refund already determined.
• Zoho Corporation Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax — no equalisation levy on an Indian parent's reimbursement to its US subsidiary of Google advertising costs, and the corporate veil cannot be pierced to create the charge High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My Indian client reimburses its overseas subsidiary for online advertising the subsidiary bought abroad. The department says the levy is payable because the money really came from India. Is a reimbursement within the charge?
  It is not. The equalisation levy is charged by Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 and not by the Income-tax Act, and on a textual reading of sections 164 and 165 the charge falls on consideration for a specified service received by a non-resident FROM an Indian resident carrying on business. Where a US subsidiary bought Google advertising from Google USA and the Indian parent merely reimbursed it, the service was provided by one non-resident to another and the levy cannot be imposed on the Indian parent unless reimbursement is itself a specified service — and it is not. The Committee on Taxation of E-Commerce had expressly recommended that reimbursements be brought within the levy, and Parliament did not do it. The Court also refused to pierce the corporate veil, the subsidiary having been incorporated and reimbursed in this way long before the levy existed, and held that statements recorded in a section 133A survey could not fix the liability.
• 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.
• Saurav Chachra v CBDT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I have a stay on my demand and they still adjusted my refund against it. Can they do that?
  Not on these facts. The Revenue conceded that a refund of Rs. 14,80,270 for AY 2025-26 had been set off against the AY 2018-19 demand even though recovery of that demand stood stayed under s.220(6), and the Court found force in the submission that the action was illegal and arbitrary and the authorities' recourse perfunctory, directing the refund to be released with s.244A interest within four weeks. It gave no reasons beyond accepting that submission: it did not hold that adjustment is a mode of recovery, did not consider s.245, and did not formally quash the adjustment.
• Sirez Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps department
  I filed my return years late and I am owed a TDS refund. Will the High Court set aside a refusal to condone the delay?
  Not without evidence. The Delhi High Court dismissed this petition and left the refusal standing. A generic explanation for a thirty month delay, unsupported by any document, is not 'genuine hardship', and the fact that returns for the years on either side were filed on time told against the company.
• Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  My Indian company paid DDT at over twenty per cent on dividend to its UK parent. Can I restrict it to the ten per cent treaty rate, and does the Special Bench decision stop me?
  A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa held that it can. It allowed the appeal, set aside the Board for Advance Rulings' ruling of 27 June 2024, and declared that Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to restrict the tax rate on dividends distributed by it to Colorcon Ltd, United Kingdom, at ten per cent under Article 11 of the India-UK tax treaty — on the reasoning that DDT paid by a distributing company is not an income tax on the profits or income of the company but a tax on the dividend, which is the income of the shareholder, charged in the company's hands only for administrative convenience, so that s.90(2) lets the lower treaty rate be applied.
• Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab P Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Tribunal decided my appeal years ago and the Assessing Officer still has not passed the order giving effect. What do I get besides the refund?
  You get the refund on the footing that your returned income has become final, plus additional interest under s.244A(1A) at three per cent per annum. The Karnataka High Court held that where the order giving effect is not passed within the three months allowed by s.153(5), the Assessing Officer becomes functus officio, the returned income stands, any tax collected above the tax on the returned income must be refunded, and the additional interest runs from the expiry of the s.153(5) period to the date the refund is granted.
• Balaji Landmarks LLP v CBDT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I filed my loss return late on my CA's advice and lost the carry-forward. Will the delay be condoned?
  The Board could not refuse to condone the delay. A delay caused by acting on a professional's opinion is bona fide and not negligence, especially where the issue is fairly complex and unsettled, and refusing condonation would have permanently extinguished the carry forward of losses under s.139(3) read with s.80. The department loses nothing, because s.153(1B) gives the Assessing Officer twelve months from the end of the financial year of the return to assess. The delay was condoned and the assessment directed - but all contentions were kept open, so the losses themselves remain open to examination.
• Manohar Lal Poddar v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Two years after Form 5 the Assessing Officer has issued a section 154 notice saying the tax on my settled additions was computed at the wrong rate. Can he reopen a completed Vivad se Vishwas settlement?
  No. Section 154(1)(a) allows an income-tax authority to amend an order passed by it under the Income-tax Act, 1961; the certificate issued by the designated authority under section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 is not such an order. The Patna High Court set aside both the rectification order and the section 264 revision order upholding it, and directed the refund to be paid within four weeks with statutory interest.
• Sumit Pendharkar v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  TDS was cut on the whole sale price of my flat and I missed the deadline to file. Can the Commissioner refuse to condone the delay?
  Not on these facts. The Gujarat High Court set aside a refusal to condone delay under s.119(2)(b) where a non-resident had tax deducted at source on the gross sale consideration although he had no tax liability at all, and where the Commissioner had passed an ex parte order ignoring a medical certificate explaining why the notice went unanswered. The matter was remanded with a direction to pass a fresh order condoning the delay.
• 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.
• ACIT v Satwashil Vasant Mane High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  Form 5 was issued and a refund became due to me, but the department sat on it for two years and now refuses interest, citing section 7 of the 2020 Act. Can I get interest?
  Yes. The Kerala High Court held there is no absolute prohibition in the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 on a declarant claiming interest; what section 7 excludes is interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act on the excess pre-declaration payment. Because section 5(2) obliges the declarant to pay within fifteen days, the department is equally bound to refund the excess within a reasonable time, and where the delay is solely the Revenue's fault the Court can award reasonable interest under section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978. The Revenue's writ appeal was dismissed.
• Bahar Infocons P Ltd v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I over-reported income by mistake and the time to file a revised return has gone. Can it be fixed?
  The Commissioner cannot reject a revision application under s.264 solely because a revised return was not filed within the s.139(5) time. The power exists to relieve against over-assessment and reaches a mistake the assessee detects after the assessment is complete. Here provisions for bonus written back had been taxed twice across assessment years 2019-20 to 2021-22, and the revision applications were sent back to the Principal Commissioner to decide the adjustment on merits - the Court did not itself order relief.
• Munchener Ruckversicherungs Gesellshaft AG v CIT (International Taxation) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The deductor credited the TDS late, so it turned up in 26AS only after I had filed. The department says I should have revised my return, and refuses credit because I never offered the income to tax. Is there a way back?
  Yes - s.155(14). The Delhi High Court held that s.155(14) places the Assessing Officer under a statutory obligation to amend the assessment or intimation once the certificate or the updated Form 26AS is produced, and that the sub-section neither contemplates nor mandates the original return being amended or revised. It also held that the Commissioner was wrong to require the income to be offered to tax where the assessee had consistently and uncontestedly said the receipt was not taxable in India.
• Gopal Vazirani v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  The Commissioner says the proviso to section 240 shows that returned income is sacrosanct, so he cannot give my client a refund below what he himself returned. Is that right?
  No. The proviso to section 240 bites only in the two situations it describes — an assessment set aside or cancelled with a fresh assessment directed, and an assessment annulled — and says nothing about a case where neither has happened. There is no provision in the Act denying a refund of excess tax where the income ultimately assessable is less than the returned income; an assessee can be asked to pay only such tax as is legally due and nothing more.
• 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.
• K S Bilawala v PCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I paid tax on a receipt that was never taxable and the deadline has passed. Is that genuine hardship?
  Yes. Genuine hardship under s.119(2)(b) is not confined to financial distress — where an assessee feels he has paid more tax than he was liable to pay, that is hardship enough to warrant condonation. The rejection was set aside and the authority directed to condone the delay and decide the matter on its substantive merits.
• Incredible Unique Buildcon P Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  My customer deducted TDS on my bills and deposited almost none of it, and I have no Form 16A. Can I still get the credit and stop the demand?
  Yes. The Court held that the bar in s.205 operates as soon as it is established that tax was deducted at source, whether or not the deductor deposited it and whether or not a TDS certificate was issued. Form 16A is not the only evidence of deduction; other reliable material — the return disclosures supported by ledger accounts — will do.
• Tata Communications Ltd v Dy CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The department paid my refund but not the s.244A interest. Can I get interest on what is still unpaid?
  Yes. Once the accrued s.244A interest has become part of the sum refundable, withholding part of that sum is simply non-payment, and interest on the unpaid amount arises because of it — not as interest on interest. The department was directed to refund the entire amount due together with s.244A interest.
• 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.
• Vishwanath C. Tarali v State of Karnataka High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Income-tax Officer lodged a police complaint about false returns claiming refunds, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the Magistrate took cognizance of IPC offences. Can that be done without sanction under s.279 and a complaint by an authorised authority?
  No, on this decision. Reading s.279 with s.280B together, an offence under Chapter XXII can be taken cognizance of only on a complaint made by an authority authorised in that behalf under the Act, after the previous sanction of the competent authority. A Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of a final report submitted by the police, and cognizance so taken is without authority of law, so that continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of process.
• 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.
• Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt Ltd v Joint Secretary High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The competent authorities have settled your case under the mutual agreement procedure and the department still will not give effect to it. What order will the court make?
  A mandatory one. The Karnataka High Court declared that the revenue authorities cannot defer implementing or giving effect to a MAP settlement, directed them to amend the assessment orders for all four years in conformity with it, to allow the refund with permissible interest under the prescribed procedure, and to complete the exercise within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
• L. Venkataramana Raju v. Union of India (Karnataka High Court) — where compensation is payable under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, section 96 of that Act exempts it from income-tax and from TDS even though the land is not agricultural and section 10(37) cannot apply High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My client's commercial property was compulsorily acquired for a metro project and tax was deducted at source on the compensation. Section 10(37) does not help because the land is not agricultural. Is there anything else?
  Yes — section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides that no income tax or stamp duty shall be levied on any award or agreement made under that Act except one under its section 46. The Karnataka High Court held that where the acquisition was initiated after 1 January 2014 the compensation had to be paid under the 2013 Act, and that on a conjoint reading of section 96 of that Act, CBDT Circular No. 36/2016 dated 25 October 2016, the second proviso to section 194LA of the Income-tax Act and section 10(37), such compensation is exempt both from income-tax and from tax deduction at source. The writ petitions were allowed, the awards and endorsements quashed, and a refund of the TDS with interest directed.
• Ashish Jayantilal Sanghavi v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  I applied within thirty days to have the asset seized in a search released and explained the source, and the Assessing Officer has simply sat on the application. The hundred and twenty days have long gone. Can he keep holding it?
  No. The Gujarat High Court held that the time limit in the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 132B is mandatory and not directory, and that it is not permissible for a court to read it as merely directory, because doing so would dilute the statutory rigour and give the Assessing Officer unbridled power to retain seized assets indefinitely against a possible future liability without ever deciding the application. The Court directed the seized diamonds to be handed over to the writ applicant within four weeks.
• Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My employer deducted TDS from my salary and never deposited it. The portal shows nothing in 26AS, I do not even have Form 16 for one of the years, and the department has adjusted my later refunds against the demand. Can they do that?
  No. Where the employer has in fact deducted the tax, the department is precluded from denying the deductee credit for it, and any recovery or adjustment already made must be refunded with statutory interest. The absence of the entry in the departmental system, and the absence of a Form 16 for one of the years, were both raised by the Revenue and neither saved the demand.
• Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I let the 30 days to appeal my 143(1) intimation lapse. Can I still go to the PCIT under s.264?
  Yes. Section 264(4) bars revision only in the situations it lists, essentially where an appeal is pending or has been decided; letting the appeal period run out without filing is not one of them. The revision application had to be decided on merits, and no formal waiver of the right of appeal could be demanded, because a right not exercised does not need to be waived.
• 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.
• Trust for Reaching the Unreached v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our audit report was not e-filed with the return and exemption was denied. Can the delay be condoned?
  Yes. The requirement to furnish the audit report with the return is procedural and directory, so exemption under ss.11 and 12 cannot be refused merely for late filing. The Commissioner's refusal to condone was set aside because the s.119(2)(b) discretion must be exercised equitably and judiciously, not on an exclusively pro-revenue view.
• CIT v M/s. Syndicate Bank High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund was paid but the s.244A interest due on it was left out. Is the department liable to pay interest on that omitted interest, or is that the forbidden interest on interest?
  The Karnataka High Court held the department is liable, and that this is not interest on interest. Following the three-Judge Bench in CIT v. HEG Ltd., it held that the interest component partakes of the character of the 'amount' that becomes due to the assessee under s.244A, so an order of refund must include the interest payable, and if it does not, the Revenue is liable to pay interest on the shortfall.
• Maple Logistics P Ltd v Pr Chief CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  My refund is being withheld under s.241A because my case is in scrutiny. Is a scrutiny notice enough?
  No — but fix the year first. For AYs 2017-18 to 2022-23 the return had to be processed and the refund determined, and s.241A was the only route to hold it back: it needed a written, reasoned, approved order showing why paying THIS refund was likely to hurt the revenue, and repeating the words of the section, or pointing to the s.143(2) notice, is not a reason. Section 241A ceased to apply from 1 April 2023 (Finance Act 2023) and the withholding power now sits in s.245(2), which requires the same written reasons and the same previous approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The reasoning below transfers, but for AY 2023-24 onwards the order to demand, and to attack, is a s.245(2) order.
• 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.
• R. Banumathy v Commissioner of Income Tax-I High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My client missed the s.10(10C) exemption in the original return, filed a revised return that the officer lodged as invalid, and the Commissioner rejected the s.264 revision. Is there anything left?
  Yes. The Madras High Court set aside the s.264 order and directed refund of the excess tax, holding that the exemption under s.10(10C) up to five lakh rupees was available to the employee of a bank under an early retirement option scheme and that Rule 2BA cannot cut down the section. It added that where an assessee pays excess tax it is the Department's bounden duty to tell him of the reliefs he is entitled to and to refund the excess.
• Naresh Bhavani Shah (HUF) v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The HUF's money was invested in the karta's own name, so the TDS certificate and the 26AS entry carry his individual PAN. The HUF offered the interest to tax and the karta claimed no credit. The department says PAN mismatch, no credit. What now?
  The credit was directed to be given to the HUF. The Court held that the ordinary route is Rule 37BA(2) - the deductee files a declaration with the deductor, and the deductor issues the certificate in the name of the person entitled to credit - and that this procedure must invariably be completed before credit can be claimed where the certificate shows someone else's name and PAN. But it also held there is no dearth of power in the department to give credit in a genuine case, and on these special facts it directed credit on the karta filing an affidavit that the money and the income were not his and that he had claimed no credit.
• Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd v Dy CIT High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The department paid my s.244A interest years late. Can I claim interest on that delayed interest?
  The Gujarat High Court said no, and answered the question in favour of the Revenue. Applying the Supreme Court's clarification in CIT v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, it held that since Parliament inserted s.244A to provide for interest on refunds, it is only that statutory interest that an assessee may claim from the Revenue, and no other interest on such statutory interest.
• 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.
• Vijay Gupta v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I made a mistake in my own return and paid tax I did not owe. The time to revise has gone. Can the Commissioner give me relief under section 264?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court held that the revisional power under section 264 is very wide and is not confined to correcting the officer's errors - it extends to errors made by the assessee, including a legitimate claim never made in the return and raised for the first time in the revision application. An intimation under section 143(1) is an "order" for section 264. Paying the Rs.500 fee late is a curable irregularity, not a bar. The Commissioner's rejection was set aside and the revision restored for fresh consideration on merits.
• IVRCL-KBL (JV) v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My joint venture bid for and won the contract, the whole of it was back-to-backed to a constituent member, and the government deducted TDS from the JV's bills. The Assessing Officer refuses the JV credit under Rule 37BA(2)(i), saying credit belongs to the member who did the work. Who gets it?
  The joint venture does. Rule 37BA(2)(i) displaces credit from the deductee to another person only where some provision of the Act makes the income assessable in that other person's hands, and only where the proviso's machinery has been followed - the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports the deduction in the other person's name. Neither condition was met, and the Court set aside the assessment orders to the extent they denied the JV credit.
• CIT, Kolkata-I v Birla Corporation Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  Part of my refund is self-assessment tax I paid under s.140A. The officer says no interest is payable on that. Is he right?
  No. The Calcutta High Court held that s.244A(1)(b) is a residuary clause that covers a refund of excess self-assessment tax paid under s.140A, and that interest runs from the date the tax was paid to the date the refund is granted — a starting point since narrowed by s.244A(1)(aa) for periods from 1 June 2016. The Explanation to clause (b) does not stand in the way, because it operates only where the tax was paid pursuant to a notice of demand under s.156.
• CIT-15 v Relcom High CourtHelps taxpayer
  A vendor billed my sister concern but put my PAN on the TDS certificate, so my 26AS shows receipts and TDS that are not mine. The tax has been paid by the sister concern. Can I claim the credit without offering that income?
  On these facts, yes. The Delhi High Court refused to let s.199 be used as a technical bar where the corresponding income had been assessed in the sister concern's hands, that concern had claimed no credit and raised no objection, and the deduction was undisputed. The Court declined to require the assessee to first chase the vendor for a corrected certificate, holding that procedure is the handmaid of justice.
• CIT-II v Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd High CourtHelps department
  My Tribunal order cancelling s.234D interest relied on Ekta Promoters. Is that still worth anything after the 2012 amendment?
  No. The Gujarat High Court held that the Special Bench view in Ekta Promoters — that s.234D operates only from AY 2004-05 — is incorrect, and followed the Bombay High Court in Indian Oil Corporation that Explanation 2 is declaratory. Where excess refund has been granted, s.234D applies even for earlier assessment years if the assessment was framed after 1 June 2003.
• 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.
• CIT v Indian Oil Corporation Ltd High CourtHelps department
  My assessment for an early year was completed after 1 June 2003 but the s.143(1) refund was issued before that date. Can they charge me s.234D interest on it?
  Yes. Explanation 2 to s.234D, inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 1 June 2003, is declaratory, so s.234D reaches an assessment year commencing before 1 June 2003 provided the assessment proceeding was completed after that date. The date on which the s.143(1) refund was actually granted is irrelevant; what fixes liability is the date the assessment was completed.
• A. Kowsalya Bai v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My income is below the taxable limit and I filed Form 15G, but the finance company says it cannot act on it without a PAN. Can section 206AA be applied to me?
  No. The Karnataka High Court read section 206AA down as inapplicable to persons whose income is below the taxable limit. Section 139A obliges only certain persons to obtain a permanent account number, and a person with income below the exemption limit is not among them. Section 206AA, which invalidates a section 197A declaration filed without a PAN, runs contrary to that earlier provision and, so applied, is discriminatory. The Court held that banking and financial institutions must not insist on a PAN from such small investors, adding that any evasion or concealment can be dealt with under the penal provisions. Section 206AA continues to apply to those above the taxable limit.
• Indglonal Investment & Finance Ltd v ITO High CourtCuts both ways
  My client's assessment has become final and I now want the tax back because the levy was wrong. Can I run that argument as a refund claim, or in a writ petition based on Article 265?
  No. In a claim under Chapter XIX section 242 forbids the assessee from questioning the correctness of an assessment or other matter that has become final and conclusive, or asking for a review of it; the authorities cannot go behind the assessment order while examining a refund. Article 265 is not violated where tax has been collected under a valid enactment and the 'wrong' order has become final — the remedy is to attack the order itself, in appeal, revision or a writ, and refund follows only as a consequence of that.
• Sitaldas K. Motwani v Director General of Income-tax (International Taxation) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund claim is late and the Commissioner has refused to condone the delay under section 119(2)(b) because I had no good reason for filing late — is that the right test?
  No, that alone is too narrow. The Bombay High Court held that 'genuine hardship' in section 119(2)(b) must be construed liberally, and the authority is not confined to asking whether some substantial cause prevented a timely return. Refusing condonation can throw out a meritorious claim at the threshold, whereas condoning it means at worst that the matter is decided on merits. On the correctness of the refund claim the authority must see only that a prima facie case exists that is not bound to fail for an apparent defect, not prejudge the merits. The refusal was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
• Punjab State Warehousing Corporation v CIT High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client's old assessment was set aside, a fresh assessment produced a large refund, and no interest was paid. For a year before 1989-90, which section gives him interest?
  For assessments up to 1988-89 there is no single interest provision: section 214 runs only to the date of the regular assessment, section 244(1) runs from three months after the order under section 240, section 244(1A) is confined to amounts paid after 31 March 1975 in pursuance of an order of assessment or penalty, and section 243 runs from three months after the total income is determined or the refund claim is made. Where the refund followed a fresh assessment and was granted the very next month, none of them was attracted, and the claim failed.
• Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps department
  The Tribunal has annulled my client's assessment as time-barred. Does he get back the whole of the advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax he had paid?
  No. What Chapter XIX refunds is only the amount paid wrongly or in excess of what is properly chargeable under the Act; it does not authorise refund of tax that was properly collected. The failure of the regular assessment — whether by annulment or by its becoming time-barred — does not turn tax payable on the assessee's own returned income into tax wrongly collected.
• Smt. Shantibai v CIT High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The Assessing Officer has determined the income at nil after the Tribunal cancelled the assessment, but has noted that the tax already deposited will not be refunded. Is that refusal appealable, or must I file a writ?
  It is appealable. An order of the officer refusing to refund an amount the assessee claims to be in excess of the tax properly chargeable is, in substance, an order under section 237, and an appeal lies against it — under section 246(n) as it then stood, and under section 246A(1)(i) today. That the same obligation could also be enforced by a mandamus or a civil suit does not take away the statutory right of appeal.
• Bhandari Bros v ITO, Bundi ITATHelps taxpayer
  Tax was deducted in my PAN under s.194Q on the whole mandi turnover, but I am a kachha arahtiya and I only offer my commission to tax. CPC has cut my TDS credit down in proportion. Can I still claim the whole deduction?
  Yes, on this order. A commission agent in the Bundi grain mandi declared commission receipts of Rs 2,94,975 and claimed TDS of Rs 2,37,479, of which Rs 74,072 had been deducted by purchasers under s.194Q on sale proceeds that belonged to the farmers; CPC allowed Rs 10,037 under s.143(1)(a) and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the withholding of the s.194Q component. The Jaipur SMC Bench held that once an amount has been deducted from the assessee's income and paid into the Government treasury against his PAN, credit cannot be refused on the ground that the deduction ought to have been made in somebody else's hands, and found no merit in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on s.199 read with rule 37BA(2). Note what this is not: the Tribunal did not decide any question about the scope or correct application of s.194Q, and expressly proceeded on the footing that the deduction may have been made wrongly.
• Sophos Technologies Pvt Ltd v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Your APA produced extra income for a year whose advance tax dates passed long ago, and you paid s.234B and s.234C interest on it in the modified return. Can you get it back?
  Yes, before this Bench. The Tribunal directed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to delete the additional s.234B and s.234C interest levied on the income added by the APA and to refund it, and allowed the appeal. It gave that direction in one sentence, as following the precedents placed before it; it did not set out reasoning of its own on the interest question.
• Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals), NFAC ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I paid DDT at the full domestic rate years ago and never claimed the treaty rate in my return. Is there any way to get the excess back now?
  The Delhi Tribunal allowed exactly that route. The company had paid DDT at 16.61 per cent on dividend to its Japanese parent for FY 2010-11, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Tea and the Tribunal's decision in Giesecke & Devrient it applied to the Assessing Officer under s.237 on 27 November 2020 for refund of the excess of 6.61 per cent. The Tribunal held the claim maintainable notwithstanding that it had not been made in the return, followed the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia, and directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax on the dividend distributed to Mitsui Mining and Smelting Company Limited, Japan at ten per cent under Article 10 of the India-Japan treaty; all three appeals were allowed.
• Dr. Rangasamy Sudha v ITO, Erode ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I meant to stay in the new regime but a wrong Form 10-IE put me back in the old one, and CPC has taxed me under the old regime with no Chapter VI-A deductions because I claimed none in the return. Can I claim them now?
  Yes. The Chennai Tribunal held that a fresh claim of deduction made for the first time before the first appellate authority has to be entertained, and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income allowing Rs 2,00,000 of Chapter VI-A deductions — Rs 1,50,000 under s.80C and Rs 50,000 under s.80TTB — that had never been claimed in the return. If CPC has processed the return on the old regime, the assessee is entitled to the old regime's deductions.
• Gopikishan Pallod v. ITO, Ward 7(1), Hyderabad (ITAT Hyderabad) — the Central Processing Centre cannot cut section 194-O credit proportionately because the platform deducted on gross sales while the seller reported net of returns ITATHelps taxpayer
  I sell on a marketplace. The operator deducted under section 194-O on my gross sales, but I reported turnover net of sales returns, and the CPC has allowed me only proportionate TDS credit under Rule 37BA. How do I get the rest?
  By reconciling the difference and showing that the whole of the income relatable to the TDS credit has been offered to tax. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had misunderstood the facts, that gross sales less sales returns tallied with the net turnover declared, and that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the full credit of Rs 1,62,412 as per Form 26AS; the Commissioner (Appeals)'s contrary reasoning was based on assumption and presumption, not on fact.
• HCC CP PL JV v ITO ITATHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer has withdrawn my joint venture's TDS credit, saying section 238(1) gives the refund to the constituent partners and not to the JV. Can he do that?
  Not on these facts. Section 238(1) transfers the right to refund only where the income of one person is in fact included in the total income of another; where the joint venture itself credited the gross contract receipts as its revenue and debited the back-to-back payments to its constituents as expenses, the profit or loss from the contract was disclosed in the JV's own hands, so section 238(1) is not attracted and credit under Rule 37BA(1) follows the person to whom the payment was made and in whose name the tax was deducted.
• Valeo v ACIT (International Taxation), Chennai ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My French client offered dividend from its Indian subsidiaries at 5 per cent under the most favoured nation clause and claimed a refund. After the Supreme Court's decision in Nestle SA, what happens to that claim?
  It fails. The Chennai Tribunal applied Nestle SA and dismissed the ground, holding that the 5 per cent rate claimed under Article 11(2) of the India-France DTAA read with the Protocol most favoured nation clause, imported from India's treaties with Slovenia, Lithuania and Colombia, could not be given effect without a separate notification under s.90(1). The dividend therefore remains taxable at the treaty rate as notified, and the refund claimed on the 5 per cent basis goes.
• Adroit Structural Engineers Pvt Ltd v ADIT (CPC) ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The payer deducted and reported my TDS one year early, so it sits in the previous year's 26AS. CPC disallowed the credit in the year I offered the income, and the CIT(A) said 26AS is 26AS. What is the answer?
  Rule 37BA(3)(i) gives credit for the assessment year for which the income is assessable, so credit belongs to the year in which the income was offered, not the year in which the deductor happened to report it. The Tribunal held that where there is no double claim the assessee is entitled to credit in the year the corresponding income was offered and the invoices were raised, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify that the same credit had not been claimed in another year.
• Unnikrishnan V S v ITO (International Taxation) — an ESOP benefit accrues where the qualifying services were rendered, so a non-resident who was granted options for work done in India is taxed here on exercise ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client is a non-resident now. He exercised options granted years ago while he worked in India, and his employer deducted tax. Can he claim the perquisite did not accrue in India, or take treaty protection?
  No, on these facts — and this is stage one, the perquisite on exercise under s.17(2)(vi). The Tribunal held that the benefit accrued and arose in India at the time the options were GRANTED, in consideration of services rendered in India, even though s.17(2)(vi) brings it to tax only in the year of exercise. Article 15 of the India-UAE treaty gave no protection because the employment to which the benefit related was exercised in India, and the taxpayer's own authorities pointed the other way. Both appeals were dismissed.
• Bank of Baroda v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  They paid me part of my refund and left the rest outstanding. Do I lose interest because they say the part paid covered the interest?
  The opposite. The Tribunal held that a refund already granted is to be adjusted first against the interest component of the refund and only the balance against the tax component, so that the tax still outstanding continues to carry interest under s.244A until it is actually paid. The rationale is symmetry with the Explanation to s.140A(1), which requires a payment made by an assessee to be adjusted first towards interest and then towards tax.
• Statutory position — s.219: advance tax is a payment of tax for the year, and credit for it must be given in the regular assessment CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The assessment order taxes the year but the computation sheet has not given credit for the advance tax my client paid, or has credited it to the wrong year. What is the statutory basis for insisting on the credit?
  Section 219 is the answer and it is a single sentence: any sum, other than a penalty or interest, paid by or recovered from an assessee as advance tax in pursuance of Chapter XVII shall be treated as a payment of tax in respect of the income of the period which would be the previous year for an assessment for the assessment year next following the financial year in which it was payable, and credit therefor shall be given to the assessee in the regular assessment. So the section does two things: it characterises advance tax as a payment of tax rather than a deposit, and it fixes the year to which that payment belongs by reference to the financial year in which the tax was payable.
• Statutory position — s.194A: tax on interest other than interest on securities, with the threshold at ₹50,000 for a bank, co-operative bank or post office, ₹1,00,000 for a senior citizen and ₹10,000 in any other case — the 1961 Act position from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My bank has deducted tax on my fixed deposit interest and I was told the limit had gone up. My father is a senior citizen and his bank deducted too. There is also a loan I took from a friend on which I pay interest, and a co-operative society that pays me interest on a deposit. Who exactly has to deduct under section 194A, on what amount, and what are the limits as they stand now?
  Section 194A requires any person who is not an individual or a Hindu undivided family, and who pays a resident interest other than interest on securities, to deduct tax at the rates in force at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. An individual or HUF is drawn in only by the proviso to sub-section (1), and only if total sales, gross receipts or turnover exceeded one crore rupees in business or fifty lakh rupees in profession in the preceding financial year. Section 194A(3)(i) sets the thresholds. From 1 April 2025 they are fifty thousand rupees where the payer is a banking company, a co-operative society carrying on banking business or a post office deposit scheme, one lakh rupees where the payee is a senior citizen, and ten thousand rupees in any other case — each figure substituted by Act No. 7 of 2025, the Finance Act, 2025. Section 194A(3) also carries the exclusions: interest paid to a banking company, a financial corporation, the Life Insurance Corporation, the Unit Trust of India or an insurer under clause (iii); interest paid by a firm to its partner under clause (iv); the co-operative society exemptions in clauses (v) and (viia), which since 1 April 2020 are switched off only where both conditions in the proviso are met — the society's turnover exceeded fifty crore rupees in the preceding financial year and the interest to that payee crossed one lakh rupees for a senior citizen or fifty thousand rupees for anyone else; and the two Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal limbs in clauses (ix) and (ixa), where interest credited is never liable and interest paid is liable only above fifty thousand rupees in the financial year — a figure the Finance Act, 2025 did not move. Section 197A(1A) and (1C) let a payee stop the deduction by declaration — Form No. 15G, or Form No. 15H for a resident individual aged sixty or more, both prescribed by rule 29C. From 1 April 2026 the Income-tax Act, 1961 was repealed by section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025; the successor is section 393(1) of the 2025 Act, whose Table carries the same three figures.
• CBDT Circular 16/2024 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  Our Form 10B is years late. Who can condone the delay, and how long do I have to apply?
  Apply within three years from the end of the assessment year concerned. Delays up to 365 days are decided by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; delays beyond 365 days go to the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner or Director General. The circular covers Forms 9A, 10, 10B and 10BB for assessment year 2018-19 onwards.
• Statutory position — s.197: the Assessing Officer may certify a lower rate, or nil, for a listed section, but only on the payee's application and only for a period of the previous year — the 1961 Act position, for deductions up to 31 March 2026 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My money is stuck. Every invoice I raise has tax deducted at the full rate, my actual tax for the year is far less than the deductions, and I only get it back a year later when the refund comes. Somebody told me to apply for a lower-deduction certificate under section 197. What does section 197 actually say — which payments does it cover, what does the Assessing Officer have to be satisfied about, what form do I file, and can the certificate be backdated to cover the deductions already made?
  Section 197(1) lets the payee apply to the Assessing Officer for a certificate that the payer may deduct at a lower rate, or not at all. It is not open-ended: it works only for the sections named in it, and the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that “the total income of the recipient justifies” the lower rate. The list is sections 192, 193, 194, 194A, 194C, 194D, 194G, 194H, 194-I, 194J, 194K, 194LA, 194LBA, 194LBB, 194LBC, 194M, 194-O, 194Q and 195 — 194LBA was added by Act No. 8 of 2023 with effect from 1 April 2023 and 194Q by Act No. 15 of 2024 with effect from 1 October 2024. Section 197(2) then binds the payer: once a certificate is given, he deducts at the certified rate, or nothing, until the Assessing Officer cancels it. Section 197(2A) is the rule-making power, and the rules made under it are rule 28 (application in Form No. 13, filed electronically), rule 28AA (how the rate is worked out and how long the certificate lasts) and rule 28AB (a no-deduction certificate for trusts and other section 139(4C) filers). Nothing in the section or the rules confers a power to backdate a certificate, and in substance it operates forward: rule 28AA(4) sends it to the named deductor, who cannot un-deduct months already past. From 1 April 2026 this machinery is gone — the Income-tax Act, 1961 was repealed by section 536 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and the successor is section 395 of the 2025 Act, applied for in Form No. 128 under rule 213 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026, and from the same date section 395(6) lets that application go to a prescribed income-tax authority instead of the Assessing Officer.
• Statutory position — section 139AA(2) and rule 114AAA: what an inoperative PAN actually does, and the CBDT circulars that undo it CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  CPC has raised a short-deduction demand on me because my payee's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. What exactly does an inoperative PAN do, and is there any Board relief?
  An inoperative PAN carries four consequences and only four, and rule 114AAA(3) lists them: no refund of tax is made, no interest is payable on that refund for the period, tax deductible under Chapter XVII-B is deducted at the higher rate under section 206AA, and tax collectible under Chapter XVII-BB is collected at the higher rate under section 206CC. The third and fourth of those fall on the DEDUCTOR or COLLECTOR, not on the person who failed to link, which is why the demand lands on someone who did nothing wrong. The Board has issued a sequence of circulars relieving the deductor where the PAN is made operative by a date, and the sequence — Circular No. 3/2023 dated 28 March 2023, Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024 and Circular No. 9/2025 dated 21 July 2025 — is the first thing to check, before any argument on merits.
• CBDT Instruction No. 01/2016 - the six months in s.154(8) CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  My rectification application has been sitting with the officer for more than six months. Has it lapsed?
  No. The Board issued this instruction precisely because officers were taking the view that an application not decided inside the six months in s.154(8) had lapsed and needed no action. The instruction records that view, rejects it, and directs that the six-month limit be strictly followed and monitored by supervisory officers.
• CBDT Instruction No. 02/2016 - rectification orders must be in writing CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The officer says my rectification has been 'done in the system' but I have received no order. Is that enough?
  No. The Board found that rectification orders under s.154 were being passed by officers on the AST system without a copy of the order being given to the taxpayer, who was then unaware of the decision and unable to pursue it in appeal or by a further rectification. Pointing to s.154(4), which requires the order to be passed in writing, it directed that all rectification applications be disposed of after passing an order in writing, to be duly served on the taxpayer concerned, and not by merely making the necessary rectification on the AST system.
• 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.
• CBDT Instruction No. 5/2013 — TDS credit where 26AS does not match CBDT Circulars & InstructionsHelps taxpayer
  Form 26AS does not show my TDS but I hold the deductor's certificate. Must the officer still verify and give me credit?
  Yes. Issued to give effect to the Delhi High Court's directions in Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi), the Instruction tells the assessing officer that where the assessee produces the TDS certificate as evidence against a mismatched amount, the officer must verify whether the deductor has paid the tax into the Government account and, if he has, give the credit. The Allahabad High Court has since decided a refund case on the strength of it.
• Statutory position — s.234D: interest on a refund granted under s.143(1) that regular assessment shows should not have been granted — the rate, the period, the reduction under sub-section (2), and Explanation 2 for assessment years commencing before 1 June 2003 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  We were given a refund when the return was processed under s.143(1). On scrutiny the Assessing Officer has now raised a demand and has also charged interest under s.234D on the refund. Is that right, for how long does the interest run, and can he do it for an assessment year that is older than the section itself?
  Yes, on the conditions in sub-section (1). Section 234D charges simple interest where a refund is granted to the assessee under s.143(1) and either (a) no refund is due on regular assessment, or (b) the amount refunded under s.143(1) exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment. The rate is one-half per cent, on the whole or the excess amount so refunded, for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the date of grant of refund to the date of such regular assessment. The section was inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1 June 2003, and the words "one-half per cent" were substituted for "two-third" by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 with effect from 8 September 2003 — both recorded in footnotes printed against the section. Sub-section (2) provides that where, as a result of an order under s.154, s.155, s.250, s.254, s.260, s.262, s.263 or s.264, or an order of the Settlement Commission under s.245D(4), the refund granted under s.143(1) is held to be correctly allowed either in whole or in part, the interest chargeable under sub-section (1) shall be reduced accordingly. Explanation 1 makes a first-time assessment under s.147 or s.153A a regular assessment for the purposes of the section. Explanation 2, which the later editions of the section print and the earlier ones do not, reads: "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the provisions of this section shall also apply to an assessment year commencing before the 1st day of June, 2003 if the proceedings in respect of such assessment year is completed after the said date." Which amending Act inserted Explanation 2, and from what date, is not established here — the editions of the section that print it carry no footnotes, and the editions that carry footnotes do not print it.
• CBDT Circular No. 9/2001 dated 9 July 2001 — on a regular assessment under section 172(7) the non-resident is liable to interest under sections 234B and 234C and entitled to interest under section 244A; Circular No. 730 withdrawn CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  Our foreign shipping client elected under section 172(7) for a regular assessment and is now getting a refund. The Department says no interest is payable on it because of an old Board circular. Is that circular still good?
  It is not. Circular No. 9/2001 dated 9 July 2001 withdrew Circular No. 730 dated 14 December 1995 as "no longer legally tenable" in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in A.S. Glittre D/5 I/S Garonne v. CIT, and clarified that on a regular assessment under s.172(7) the non-resident assessee is liable to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C and is also entitled to receive interest under s.244A, as the case may be. Circular No. 730 had said the opposite: that an assessee exercising the s.172(7) option was neither liable to interest under ss.234B and 234C nor entitled to interest under s.244A.
• Statutory position — s.115G: no return need be furnished where the only income is investment income or long-term capital gains and tax has been deducted at source CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My NRI client's only Indian income for the year was interest on debentures of an Indian public company subscribed to in foreign exchange, and the company deducted tax at source. He did not file a return and has now had a notice. Was he obliged to file?
  If both conditions in section 115G are satisfied, no. It is not necessary for a non-resident Indian to furnish a return under section 139(1) if his total income assessable under the Act during the previous year consisted ONLY of investment income or long-term capital gains or both, AND the tax deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B has been deducted from that income.
• Concentrix Services Netherlands B.V. and Optum Global Solutions International B.V. v ITO (TDS) — OVERRULED High CourtHelps taxpayerOverruled
  My Dutch parent has a s.197 certificate application pending and wants dividend withholding at 5 per cent under the most favoured nation clause in the Protocol. There is a Delhi High Court judgment in its favour. Can I still rely on it?
  No. This Delhi High Court judgment held that the Protocol forms an integral part of the India-Netherlands Convention so that 'no separate notification is required' for the most favoured nation clause to operate, and directed withholding at 5 per cent by importing the rate from India's later treaties with Slovenia, Lithuania and Colombia. That reasoning was reversed by the Supreme Court in Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA on 19 October 2023, which held that a notification under s.90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition before a court, authority or tribunal can give effect to a Protocol that alters the existing provisions of law. The entry is carried so that the reader can identify the authority and stop relying on it.
• EPCOS Electronic Components SA v UOI High CourtHelps taxpayerOverruled
  My return was accepted as filed and no demand was raised. Is a s.264 revision still open to me?
  Yes. An intimation under s.143(1) that simply accepts the return is still an order capable of revision, and 'prejudicial to the interest of the assessee' does not mean 'raised a demand'. The prejudice was that the assessee had paid more than the applicable treaty provisions required, even though the tax computed in the intimation was unchanged.

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.