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, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent


Table of Content
1. direction to respond to itat orders (Para 1)
2. petitioner sought refund due to itat's ruling (Para 2 , 3)
3. notice to respondents accepted (Para 4 , 5)
4. court's direction for compliance (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

C.M.No.32021/2022

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.10964/2022

W.P.(C) 10964/2022

1. By way of the present petition, Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to give effect to the ITAT orders in relation to the Assessment Years 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12 and grant the refund due to the Petitioner along with applicable interest in terms of Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act')

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the ITR filed by the Petitioner for the Assessment Years 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 201112 were subject to tax scrutiny in terms of Section 143(3) of the Act wherein certain additions were made to the returned income in these years. He states that in appeals filed by the Petitioner, the Delhi Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the additions made to the returned incomes.

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