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
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Ramesth Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent


Table of Content
1. refund sought for excess tax demand (Para 2)
2. requirements for granting stay on tax recovery (Para 3 , 4)
3. order for refund within specified timeline (Para 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Matter has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of Rs.1,66,35,954/- which was recovered in excess of 20% of the total disputed tax demand for the Assessment Year 2013-14 against the refunds due for various Assessment Years. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to hear and dispose of the appeal filed against the order dated 28th March, 2016 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short `the Act'].

3. 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 appropriate conditions. He states that in order to provide guidance and lay down principles regarding stay of demand, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued various Circulars/Notifications from time to time including Office Memorandums dated 29th February, 2016 and 31st J

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