Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Aditi Infrabuild and Services Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks tax refund for past assessments. (Para 2) |
| 2. stay on recovery under section 220(6). (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondents argue adjustment, not recovery. (Para 6) |
| 4. court views issue as established law. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. assessment officer must adhere to guidelines. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (ORAL)
C.M.No.4242/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1475/2022
1. The matter has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of Rs.1,83,91,108/- 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 Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. Petitioner also seeks directions restraining the Respondents from recovering any further tax demand for the Assessment Year 2016-17 till the disposal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) which is currently pending adjudication under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the A
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 grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, unless specific re....
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....
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....
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....
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....
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
