Case Law Details
Case Name : Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. The United Western Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune)
Related Assessment Year : 1996-97
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
DCIT Vs. The United Western Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) – Section 234D of the Act provides for charging of interest on excess refund granted to the assessee. Section 234D has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.6.2003. Consequently, it is made out by the assessee that the same is applicable only from the assessment year 2004-05 on wards and not in the earlier assessment years and, therefore, no interest under section 234D could be levied for the instant assessment year. The assessment year before us is 1996-97, which is
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
On the first blush, the viewpoint put forth in the published article cited in the comments is noted to have been conceded and sought to be given effect in the recent Budget ; see the proposed clarificatory Explanation under section 234 D vide clause 85 of the Bill..
Cross refer. the Post under > “S. 234D applies to proceeding completed on or after 1st June,2003
Posted: 16 Mar 2012 08:39 PM PDT”
In the reported case, as also the Bombay HC case referred to in ‘Related Posts’, the other connected issue namely,- whether irrespective of the assessment year, the provision can have application to a case where the refund was granted on or after the cut-off date of June 1, 2003, – is not seen to have been gone into; possibly, the reason is that, on the given facts and circumstances, there was no need to do so.
According to a view, however, the Revenue may have a case to press for applying section 234 D even for the assessment year 2002-03 provided refund was granted after the cut-off date. Also for the assessment year 2003-04, as according to the very scheme of things, refund could conceivably have been issued not before but only after that date. This aspect of the matter may be found to have been discussed at length , with particular reference to the case of Sigma Aldrich Foreign Holding Co. ( (2007) 104 ITD 95 (Bang)), in the article published in (2008) 173 TAXMAN 80.It may be of interest to know whether in that case the matter was taken up further, and if so, its final outcome.