Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
Unreported :
12. Interest on excess
refund : S. 234D of Income-tax Act, 1961 : Section came on statute books w.e.f.
1-6-2003 : Provision not retrospective : Interest u/s.234D cannot be charged in
respect of refunds granted prior to 1-6-2003.
[CIT v. M/s. Bajaj
Hindustan Ltd. (Bom.), ITA No. 198 of 2009 dated 15-4-2009]
In an appeal by the Revenue
the following question was raised before the Bombay High Court :
“Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was right in holding that the
interest u/s.234D cannot be charged in respect of refunds granted prior to
1-6-2003 ?”
The High Court upheld the
decision of the Tribunal and held as under :
“It is seen that the
subject provision came on statute book w.e.f. 1-6-2003. If that be so, the
said provision does not have retrospective effect. In this view of the matter
we do not see the appeal giving rise to any substantial question of law.”