https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14702 Interest on fixed deposits was denied for the period before the bank received the restraint order because the deposits had already matured and the depositor remained free to deal with them; a hypothetical retrospective renewal could not create an entitlement. Interest was also denied for the later period after attachment because the order only restrained the bank from releasing funds and did not prevent the depositor from seeking renewal. The direction to refund the amount with "interest accrued thereon" was read as referring only to interest payable under the Income-tax Act. The provisional attachment did not extinguish property rights, but it did not justify any additional interest beyond statutory refund interest. en-us Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14702 Interest on fixed deposits was denied for the period before the bank received the restraint order because the deposits had already matured and the depositor remained free to deal with them; a hypothetical retrospective renewal could not create an entitlement. Interest was also denied for the later period after attachment because the order only restrained the bank from releasing funds and did not prevent the depositor from seeking renewal. The direction to refund the amount with "interest accrued thereon" was read as referring only to interest payable under the Income-tax Act. The provisional attachment did not extinguish property rights, but it did not justify any additional interest beyond statutory refund interest. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14702