https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433709 The HC held that the Assessing Officer (TDS) lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to reject the refund claim because CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 assigned delayed refund claims to higher authorities according to monetary thresholds, with claims beyond the highest limit to be decided by the Board. The impugned rejection was therefore without jurisdiction and could not stand. The refund matter was remitted to the CBDT for fresh decision in accordance with law, and the petitioner succeeded. en-us Wed, 18 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Aug 2023 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433709 The HC held that the Assessing Officer (TDS) lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to reject the refund claim because CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 assigned delayed refund claims to higher authorities according to monetary thresholds, with claims beyond the highest limit to be decided by the Board. The impugned rejection was therefore without jurisdiction and could not stand. The refund matter was remitted to the CBDT for fresh decision in accordance with law, and the petitioner succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433709