Back
SONIA GOKANI, SANDEEP N. BHATT
Neo Structo Construction Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[Sonia Gokani, J.]
1. The petitioner is the company registered within the territory of India. The petitioner seeks the direction upon the respondent to issue the refund along with the applicable interest in the following factual background:
1.1 The petitioner filed return of income electronically on 15.03.2013 declaring the total income at Rs.43,01,51,910/- for the assessment year 2012-2013.
1.2 His case was selected for scrutiny under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the IT Act’ hereinafter) and the notices were served by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Surat. The Assessment Order came to be passed on 31.03.2015 determining the total income of the petitioner at Rs.87,35,93,335/- raising the demand of Rs.20,53,38,770/-.
1.3 The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 31.03.2015 in prescribed Form 35 on 30.04.2015. We are given to understand that certain details called for have been tendered and the matter is still pending for final adjudication.
1.4 It is the grievance on the part of the petitioner that against the tax
Point of Law : Taxation - Lieu of payment of refund tax - Government is bound to follow rules and standards they themselves had set on pain of their action being invalidated.
Tax authorities must adhere to established guidelines for refund adjustments, and deviations require explicit justification.
Natural justice requires prior intimation before adjusting tax refunds against outstanding dues under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.
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....
Adjustment of tax refunds against outstanding dues requires prior intimation and adherence to principles of natural justice as mandated by Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.
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....
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 must adhere to the provisions of the Office Memorandums and grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on pa....
Refunds cannot be adjusted against demands exceeding 20% of the disputed amount, ensuring compliance with pre-deposit norms under taxation laws.
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
