SRI P SHIVASHANKAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found that the respondent failed to examine the claim for interest in light of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The petitioner sought interest on a refund received from the Income Tax Department. The respondent rejected this claim based on an instruction, without considering the relevant section of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the Income Tax Department correctly rejected the claim for interest on refund without considering Section 244A of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WP.No.13742 OF 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.13742 OF 2012 (T-IT)
BETWEEN: SRI P.SHIVASHANKAR S/O R.PUTTANNA AGE: 76 YEARS PROP K. RAMANNA SONS & CO. 29, APMC YARD MYSORE-4 … PETITIONER (BY SRI VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.SHANKAR & M.LAVA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 55/1, SHILPSHREE VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHVESHWARA NAGAR MYSORE-570 008. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), 55/1, SHILPSHREE VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHVESHWARA NAGAR MYSORE – 570 008
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 & R2) WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE EXTENT IT IS HELD AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 24.2.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
- 2 - WP.No.13742 OF 2012 WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Heard Sri. Vivek, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.V.Seshachala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.02.2012 (Annexure-A) rejecting the claim made by the petitioner for grant of interest on the refund received by him. The rejection is based on instruction No.13/2006 dated 22.12.2006. 3. In my opinion, respondent No.1 should have examined the claim for interest on the refund in the light of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). That exercise has not been done by respondent No.1. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.02.2012 is set-aside. The
- 3 - WP.No.13742 OF 2012 matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for reconsideration in accordance with law and in the light of Section 244A of the Act. Petition disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE GH
More judgments on Section 244A
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), RajkotITA 366/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Shailesh Khodabhai Ramani, Rajkot vs ITO, Ward-2(1)(5), RajkotITA 257/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6805/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Pratibha Sanjai Srivastava, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2565/AHD/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026