<?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>Delayed e-verification cannot block TDS refund after condonation, where the tax burden was borne by the assessee.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101059</link>
    <description>Refund of TDS could not be denied solely because the return was not e-verified within time, where CPC later condoned the delay and accepted the verification. The tax was admittedly borne by the assessee, and once condonation was granted, reliance on the original technical defect was unsustainable. The Tribunal applied the principle that tax can be retained only with authority of law and that refusal to process the refund in these circumstances would offend Article 265 and amount to unjust enrichment by the Revenue. The rejection of the rectification claim and the supporting appellate order were set aside, and refund was directed to be processed in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:08:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:08:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Delayed e-verification cannot block TDS refund after condonation, where the tax burden was borne by the assessee.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101059</link>
      <description>Refund of TDS could not be denied solely because the return was not e-verified within time, where CPC later condoned the delay and accepted the verification. The tax was admittedly borne by the assessee, and once condonation was granted, reliance on the original technical defect was unsustainable. The Tribunal applied the principle that tax can be retained only with authority of law and that refusal to process the refund in these circumstances would offend Article 265 and amount to unjust enrichment by the Revenue. The rejection of the rectification claim and the supporting appellate order were set aside, and refund was directed to be processed in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 07:08:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>