Back
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, ASHA MENON
GE Capital Mauritius Overseas Investments – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
1. This petition was originally filed, seeking a mandamus, directing the respondents to issue / grant refund due of Rs.249.39 crores, for the assessment year 2018-19 along with interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner, that (i) the petitioner, on 31st October, 2018 filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for the assessment year 2018-19, claiming refund of Rs.226.72 crores, being the amount of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by the payer, from the payments made to the petitioner on account of sale by the petitioner of shares of an Indian company and which payment was not chargeable to tax in India in terms of Article 13(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius; (ii) the ITR of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice dated 22nd September, 2019, under Section 143(2) of the Act, was received by the petitioner; (iii) on 25th November, 2019, an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner, determining a refund of approximately Rs.249.39 crores to be due to the petitioner along with applicable interest; and,
Income Tax – Refund – Attachment before judgment – Power of Court -When Court not been empowered to assess tax liability in first instance, it would ordinarily not form a prima facie view even, of wh....
The main legal point established is that the withholding of a refund under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 requires detailed and compelling reasons to be recorded in writing, and the exercis....
Once a refund is quantified under Section 143(1), the Revenue must release it unless a valid order under Section 241A is issued; mere issuance of a scrutiny notice does not suffice.
Foreign company's LTCG on listed shares with STT exempt u/s 10(38) as s.115JB inapplicable per Explanation 4 if no PE; CIT revision u/s 263 invalid without twin conditions of error and prejudice afte....
The estimation of tax liability should be rational and founded on cogent grounds, taking into account the financial wherewithal of the assessee and consistent application of accounting policy.
The main legal point established is that the refund under the DVAT Act should be processed within the stipulated period, and interest is payable from the date the refund was due to be paid.
The court emphasized that orders passed by administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are required to stand or fall on their own and subsequent explanations by way of affidavit(s) cannot be permitt....
The rejection of refund claims without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and the principles of natural justice, rende....
In tax matters, entitlement to interest on delayed refunds, including on interest accrued, is affirmed, highlighting the principle that overdue amounts accrue additional interest.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
