TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act') of Rs. 5,46,32,205/- for AY 2007- 08 Rs. 1,46,19,187/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 66,25,956/- for AY 2014-15 totalling to 7,58,77,348/- as determined in the order giving effect for the respective years; b. Grant of interest under Section 244A(1A) of the I. T. Act to the tune of Rs. 78,04,600/- for AY 2007-08 Rs. 52,47,913/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 52,55,069/- for AY 2014-15 totalling to Rs. 1,83,07,582/- for all three years being interest upto the date of payment of refund; c. Grant of interest under Section 244A(1) of the I. T. Act to the tune of Rs. 1,04,06,134/- for AY 2007-08 Rs. 1,08,14,525/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 50,26,434/- for AY 2014-15 totalling to Rs. 2,62,47,093/- for all three ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 244A(1) of the I.T. Act and interest under Section 244A(1A) of the I. T. Act, payable to the Petitioner. Though, the amount of refund and interest under Section 244A(1) of the I. T. Act was paid, the interest under Section 244A(1A) of the I. T. Act was not paid to the Petitioner. Several requests have been made to release such interest, but till date such interest has not been paid to the Petitioner. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the relief in paragraph 2(b) and 2(c) as brought out earlier, is for interest under Section 244A(1) and 244A(1A). Such interest was calculated in the respective orders giving effect, all dated 23.08.2023, till the date of the respective orders. However, refunds for AY 2007-08 was granted to the Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... c. [2014] 363 ITR 658 (SC) UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. d. [2014] 361 ITR 646 (Delhi) India Trade Promotion Organisation vs. CIT e. [2025] 173 taxmann.com 12 (Bombay) Tata Communications Ltd. vs. DCIT f. [2025] 304 Taxman 664 (SC) DCIT vs.. Tata Communications Ltd. g. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 487 (Bombay) Group M Media India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT 7. Mr. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, does not the dispute the factual position. He agrees that interest under Section 244A(1A) of the I. T. Act of Rs. 7,58,77,348/- for AY 2007-08, AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 has been determined but remained to be paid. He states that this interest would be paid as expeditiously as possible. For the reliefs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the amount of refund for the aforesaid Assessment Years till the date of payment of the refund amount. 11. Insofar as the relief in paragraph 2(d) is concerned, the interest under Section 244A(1A) of Rs. 7,58,77,348/- for three years combined, though determined on 23.08.2023, has not been paid till date and more than 2 years have elapsed. We are of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to interest even on such delayed payment of interest. Very recently, a Division Bench of this Court in case of Tata Communications Ltd. (supra), following the decision in case of India Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) of the Delhi High Court, has directed the Department to grant interest on delayed payment of interest already determined. The rele....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liability is less than the tax paid. As per the old section an assessee was entitled for payment of interest on the amount of taxes refunded pursuant to an order . passed under the Act, including the order passed in an appeal. In the present fact scenario, the deductor/assessee had paid taxes pursuant to a special order passed by the assessing officer/Income Tax Officer. In the appeal filed against the said order the assessee has succeeded and a direction is issued by the appellate authority to refund the tax paid. The amount paid by the resident/deductor was retained by the Government till a direction was issued by the appellate authority to refund the same. When the said amount is refunded it should carry interest in the matter of course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest for the period of undue retention of such monies. The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest. Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course." 14. This decision was thereafter followed by this Court in Group M Media India (P) Ltd. (supra). In this case, despite there being no provision for grant of interest on refund of Equalisation Levy, the Court granted interest @ 6% by relying upon the prin....