DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Religare Finvest Limited – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks tax refund for excess demand. (Para 1) |
| 2. conditions for tax demand stay outlined. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. notice accepted; revenue counsel unprepared. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court reiterates procedure for tax demand adjustments. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court orders refund of excess tax adjustment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The hearing has been done by way of video conferencing.
1. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking refund of the Income Tax (including interest) adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demand arising in the case of the Petitioner for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 against the refunds due for the Assessments Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 along with the applicable interest. Petitioner also seeks direction to the respondent to dispose of the application dated 10th July, 2020 filed by the Petitioner under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short `the Act'] seeking rectification of the assessment order dated 17th June, 2020 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that under Section 220(6) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been conferred with the power to
The government must adhere to its own regulations regarding tax demand recovery, and any excess recovery without following prescribed procedures is deemed invalid.
The government is bound to follow the rules and standards they themselves had set, and the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the app....
Tax authorities must adhere to their own prescribed procedures regarding refund adjustments, enforcing taxpayers' rights against undue excess recoveries.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing officer is mandated to grant stay on recovery of the balance disputed outstanding tax demand till disposal of the first appeal o....
Tax authorities must follow established procedures when collecting disputed amounts, ensuring fairness and adherence to guidelines for stay of demands pending appeal decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing Officer is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand during the pendency of the appeals in accordance with....
The court upheld that tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines on stay of demand, mandating refund of adjustments exceeding 20% of disputed tax during appeal.
Tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines regarding tax recovery, including limiting recovery to 20% of disputed demands during appeal, failing which excess recovery is invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing Officer must adhere to the provisions of the Office Memorandums and grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on pa....
The Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, and the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.