9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2,50,000/- French Francs or its equivalent in Rupees alongwith interest @10% per annum from January 1, 2000 till the date of payment. The appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 31.1.2008. Thereafter, the instant execution petition was filed. 2. The said compensation was granted because the young child Jyotsna Jethani met with a horrifying accidental death while getting out of escalator maintained by Airport Authority of India (AAI). Some amount was shown to have been deducted towards TDS. It was contended that opposite party No. 1 is not entitled to deduct the said amount towards TDS. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Dev 2005 (9) SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal income is Rs.________ and that the total amount of income-tax paid, or treated as paid under Section 199, is Rs.________ I, therefore, request for a refund of Rs.__________ ________ Signature I hereby declare that I was resident/resident but not ordinarily resident/non resident during the previous year relevant to the assessment year to which this claim relates and that what is stated in this application is correct. Dated ________ Signature ___________ Notes : 1. The claim should be accompanied by a return of income in the prescribed form unless the claimant has already made such a return to the [Assessing Officer]. 2. Persons who are non-resident and whose total income is made up only of income taxed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een awarded on the basis of any deposit made by the complainant or the GDA being the borrower of any money of the complainant. Here interest payment is by way of damages. Merely describing the damages as by way of interest does not make them as interest under the Income-tax Act. A similar question arose before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. ITO 1995 53 ITD 19 (Delhi), and the Appellate Tribunal held that the amounts credited in the accounts of the allottees were not in the nature of interest within the meaning of section 2(28A) of the Income-tax Act and the Appellate Tribunal quashed the orders of those authorities and directed that what is recovered by the DDA be refunded. The Appellate Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
