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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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 Full Bench decision that overruled Sandvik Asia on the point.
• 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. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Gujrat Fluro has overruled it and held there is no interest on interest under s.244A, where only statutory interest is leviable. All that survives of Sandvik Asia is compensation for delay in granting interest on a refund under the older scheme of s.244(1A) read with s.240.
• 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.
• 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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• 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.
• P. S. Srijan Height Developers v ACIT High CourtCuts both waysValidity unconfirmed
  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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I have a stay on my demand and they still adjusted my refund against it. Can they do that?
  No. The Orissa High Court held that adjustment is a mode of recovery, so setting a refund off against a demand whose recovery is stayed under s.220(6) does indirectly what the stay forbids directly. The refund was ordered released with s.244A interest within four weeks.
• 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.
• Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab P Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• 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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Ashish Jayantilal Sanghavi v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• 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.
• 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-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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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 waysValidity unconfirmed
  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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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 departmentValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• HCC CP PL JV v ITO ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• 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.