Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Ingenico International India Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-tax, Circle 10(1) & Ors – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - The singular grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that despite the fact that the amount to be refunded was determined by the Revenue in October 2019, the amount, so determined, has not been remitted, as yet.
1.1. Interestingly, the order determining the refund is dated 02.10.2019. We have asked Mr. Kunal Sharma, who appears for the Revenue, as to how that date was endorsed on the order. His candid reply was that although he was not aware as to why the said order bore 02.10.2019 as the date, there was no dispute about the genuineness of the order.
2. What is not in dispute is that the said order has quantified the refund amount at Rs.5,89,14,434/-. This amount concerns the assessment year [in short "AY"] 2018-2019. The intimation received vide order dated 02.10.2019 by the petitioner was sent by the Revenue pursuant to return being filed qua the aforementioned AY and the same being processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"].
3. Interestingly, in the month preceding the intimation of refund, via order dated 02.10.2019, the petitioner was served with notice dated 22.09.2019 under Section 143(2) of the Act [h
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.
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....
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.
Procedural violations in tax adjudication require rectification to uphold the rights to refunds and interests, emphasizing the need for jurisdiction and fair hearing in administrative processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to the refund as per the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, and delays and technical glitches in the syste....
The court has the authority to direct the revenue to remit disputed refund amounts and grant liberty to file a rectification application for differences in refund amounts under the Income Tax Act, 19....
Point of Law : Once statute provides for payment of interest and stipulated conditions are fulfilled, respondent/revenue would be obliged, in law, to pay interest.
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 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.
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
