<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (1) TMI 45 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11157</link>
    <description>The court held that under the Income-tax Act, the term &quot;refund&quot; and &quot;any amount&quot; in Section 240 do not include interest on the refund. It clarified that interest payable by the Department is simple interest, not compound interest. The court emphasized that there is no provision in the Act for payment of interest on interest. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, discharged the rule, and awarded costs against the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 45 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11157</link>
      <description>The court held that under the Income-tax Act, the term &quot;refund&quot; and &quot;any amount&quot; in Section 240 do not include interest on the refund. It clarified that interest payable by the Department is simple interest, not compound interest. The court emphasized that there is no provision in the Act for payment of interest on interest. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, discharged the rule, and awarded costs against the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>