Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ms. Nafissa Shaikhally Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-26 (Now 34) And Others

2015 (9) TMI 967 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Interest under Section 244A - interest on the delayed refund of the TDS retained by the Revenue - delayed refund of amount due to the Petitioner - condonation of delay for refund made beyond a period of six years from the relevant Assessment Year whether could not be considered under Section 119 (2)(b) - Held that:- Before the Court, in the earlier Writ Petition leading to the order dated 15th January, 2014, there was no dispute between the parties that the Petitioner was entitled to refund unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mber, 2009 should be taken as a date/ application made under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. It was in the above view, Court directed the Respondent Revenue to grant refund of the amount claimed by the Petitioner. The refund which was granted to the Petitioner consequent to the order of this Court dated 15th January, 2014 was under the Act and not granted dehors the Act as seems to have been misunderstood by the Commissioner of Income Tax.

In the above view, we set aside the impugned or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndia, challenges the order dated 21st July, 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. By the impugned order, the Petitioner's claim for interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the delayed refund of amount due to the Petitioner, has been rejected. 2. The Petitioner is a senior citizen who had in an earlier Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.2594 of 2013 challenged the action of the Respondent Assessee in not entertaining the Petitioner's application for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uction No.13 of 2006 dated 22nd December, 2006 issued by the CBDT that an application for condonation of delay for refund made beyond a period of six years from the relevant Assessment Year could not be considered under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. This Court in its order dated 15th January, 2014 in W. P. No.2594 of 2013 inter alia held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:- "6: It is not disputed by the respondent revenue that on merits the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of refund of TD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the end of the assessment year 2004-05. In this case the revised return of income filed on 30 September 2009 should itself be considered as application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act and refund granted. 7: It is to be noted that the respondent revenue do not dispute the claim of the petitioner for refund on merits but the same is being denied only on hyper technical view of limitation. It will be noted that on 8 May 2009 the CBDT issued a circular clarifying and revi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2009 was to be considered as an application for condonation of delay and grant of refund under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. Further, Respondent did not dispute the claim of the Petitioner for refund on merits but pleaded helplessness only on the ground of limitation as provided in the Instruction No.13 of 2006 dated 22nd December, 2006 issued by CBDT. It is further observed that on 8th May, 2009, the CBDT had issued circular wherein it had clarified that the employees of RBI who opted for ear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the undisputed refund payable to the Petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the Petitioner claimed interest on the delayed refund of the TDS retained by the Revenue. The CIT(A) by the impugned order dated 21st July, 2014 rejected the claim for interest as made in Petitioner's application by inter alia holding in paragraph 7 as under: "7: Therefore, on a consideration of the totality of the facts and in the light of the decisions rendered by you, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 244 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ry, 2014. Before the Court, in the earlier Writ Petition leading to the order dated 15th January, 2014, there was no dispute between the parties that the Petitioner was entitled to refund under the Act, nor there was any dispute with regard to the quantum of refund. The only objection which was urged before us at that time the application for refund seeking to invoke under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act was time barred as it was filed beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant Ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version