TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court denies claim for interest on interest, orders payment verification</h1> <h3>JOSEPH KORAH AND OTHERS Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM</h3> JOSEPH KORAH AND OTHERS Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOTTAYAM - TMI Issues:1. Entitlement to interest on interest on refund amounts.2. Claim for compensation in lieu of interest on interest.3. Verification of payment of due amounts to the petitioner.Issue 1: Entitlement to interest on interest on refund amounts:The petitioner, an agriculturist, sought interest on interest on amounts due by way of refund following appellate orders for the assessment year 1976-77. The respondent initially granted interest under Section 132B(4) but omitted interest under Section 244(1A). The petitioner challenged this omission, citing entitlement to interest on interest. The High Court analyzed Supreme Court precedents, particularly the Sandvik Asia Ltd. case, where interest on interest was not allowed, but compensation for delayed payment was granted. Referring to Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals, the Court clarified that only interest provided under the statute could be claimed, not interest on statutory interest. Following these authoritative pronouncements, the Court held that the petitioner's claim for interest on interest could not be granted. The original petition was dismissed as the respondent had already computed interest in accordance with statutory provisions.Issue 2: Claim for compensation in lieu of interest on interest:The petitioner contended that if interest on interest was not granted, the Court could consider awarding compensation instead. However, the Court found that as per the computation provided by the respondent, interest had been calculated for the period the amounts were withheld, leaving no scope for additional compensation beyond statutory interest. The Court emphasized that since the respondent had already factored in statutory interest in the calculations, no further compensation was warranted. Consequently, the original petition failed on this ground and was dismissed.Issue 3: Verification of payment of due amounts to the petitioner:The petitioner raised concerns about the actual payment of the due amounts shown in the respondent's statement. In response, the Court directed the respondent to verify if the balance amounts indicated as payable had been disbursed to the petitioner or his legal representatives. If the amounts were found unpaid, the respondent was instructed to settle the dues within three months. Additionally, the petitioner was given the opportunity to present any relevant documents to clarify the amounts received from the respondent within one month to avoid any confusion regarding payments.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of entitlement to interest on interest, the claim for compensation, and the verification of payment of due amounts, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Court's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
