Getting the money back: interest under s.244A, adjustment against demand, revision in your favour under s.264, and condonation of delay under s.119(2)(b). 46 entries, strongest first, with what each one decided in a sentence. Read down the list, then open the entry that fits your facts. The Refunds, Interest & Condonation hub cross-lists everything that touches this area, including entries filed under another subject.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing here is written from memory. Every entry was found through a search, and the page for it links to where it was found, so you can check it rather than take our word for it. What has not happened yet is the part that matters most: nobody has read the certified copy of each judgment and signed off the summary against it. Until that is done, each page says Not yet CA-verified, and it means exactly what it says. Read the source before you rely on an entry in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.