SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Ingenico International India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent


Table of Content
1. delay in refund despite assessment completion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding delay and revenue obligations. (Para 9 , 10)
3. legal requirements for withholding refunds. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 16)
4. need for constructive approaches in disputes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
5. court's directive to remit the refund. (Para 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--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 petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top