Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Essjay Ericsson Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. refund claim details. (Para 1) |
| 2. conditions for stay and tax recovery. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. response and non-compliance issues. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal precedent and statutory obligations. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. order for refund compliance. (Para 10 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
C.M. No.47165/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14937/2021 & C.M.No.47164/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of Rs.6,05,46,907/- which was recovered in excess of 20% of the total disputed tax demand for the Assessment Year 2016-17 against the refunds due for the Assessments Years 2018-19 and 2020-2021 along with statutory interest. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to hear and dispose of the appeal filed against the order dated 07th December, 2019 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short `the Act'] that is currently pending.
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 grant stay on recovery of outstanding tax demand subject to fulfillment of appropr
Tax authorities must follow established procedures when collecting disputed amounts, ensuring fairness and adherence to guidelines for stay of demands pending appeal decisions.
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....
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.
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 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....
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 upon payment/recovery of the standa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing officer must grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, unless specific re....
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.
Tax authorities must adhere to their own prescribed procedures regarding refund adjustments, enforcing taxpayers' rights against undue excess recoveries.
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
