S. GURUSWAMY, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found that the impugned orders were not speaking orders as they lacked reasons for denying the interest. The court set aside the orders and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
What were the facts?
The petitioner claimed interest on refunds under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rejected this claim through two separate orders.
What were the issues?
Whether the orders rejecting the claim for interest on refunds were speaking orders. The need for assigning reasons for denial of interest.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P Nos.66947-66949/2010 : 1 : 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH W.P. Nos.66947-66949/2010 (T-IT) BETWEEN: S. Guruswamy, H. No.19/24, Kanaka Street, Radio Park, C.B., Bellary-583 102. …Petitioner (By Sri. H.R. Kambiyavar, Advocate) AND: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Staff Road, Fort, Bellary. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax offices, Gulbarga. 3. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Navanagar, Hubli.
…Respondents (By Sri. Y.V. Raviraj, Advocate) These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order at Annexure-E passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Navanagar, Hubli, and etc. These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing B Group this day, the Court made the following:
W.P Nos.66947-66949/2010 : 2 : 2 ORDER H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Heard. These Writ Petitions are directed against the two orders dated 02.03.2007 and 15.06.2009 produced as Annexures-E and F respectively. By the impugned orders, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli, has rejected the claim made by the petitioner under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for grant of interest on the refunds made by the Income Tax Department. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are not speaking orders inasmuch as no reasons are assigned for denial of interest u/s 244A of the Act. 3. As could be seen from the impugned orders, no reasons are assigned for denial of interest. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and
W.P Nos.66947-66949/2010 : 3 : 3 remit the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli, for reconsideration in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Petitions allowed. SD/- JUDGE bvv
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 Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026