Skip to main content

Deductor entitled to interest on refund of excess TDS from date of payment

The Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax department is liable to pay interest on the refund of tax made to resident deductor companies. A large number of appeals moved by the government against various orders of the high courts were dismissed with the observation that "the state, having received the money without right and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances". In one typical case, Union of India vs Tata Chemicals Ltd, the company had sought the assistance of two technicians from Haldor Topsoe, Denmark. The foreign company charged Tata for services and reimbursement of expenses. Tata deducted 20 per cent tax before remitting the amounts to the Danish firm. On reimbursement amount, there was a dispute and, therefore, Tata moved the appellate forum, arguing it was not income. The authority agreed and directed refund on the reimbursement part. But interest was not paid. The company claimed interest also. The revenue authorities denied interest, arguing that refunds could be made only under provisions of the Income Tax Act and not in cases where refunds are made based on notifications, as in this case. The Supreme Court settled the question in favour of companies which are deductors, stating that "the government cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful money with the accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies".

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/interest-payable-on-tds-refund-114033000786_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...