TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs adjustment of petitioner's refund against outstanding demands for specific assessment years.</h1> <h3>IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Versus Principal Directorate General Of Income Tax (Systems), New Delhi</h3> IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Versus Principal Directorate General Of Income Tax (Systems), New Delhi - TMI Issues:1. Refund due to petitioner from respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Adjustment of refund against outstanding demands for assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14.Issue 1: Refund due to petitioner from respondent Nos. 1 and 2The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs. 110,52,145/- due to the petitioner as per orders passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner was deemed an 'assessee-in-default' for non-deduction of tax at source, leading to a series of appeals and rectification orders. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, clarifying the mode of computation of interest payable by the petitioner. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed orders determining refunds due to the petitioner, totaling Rs. 110,52,45,145/-. Despite the finality of these orders, the petitioner faced difficulties obtaining the refund through the online portal TRACES under the 1st respondent's control. The petitioner's repeated requests for refund remained unaddressed by the respondents, leading to the filing of writ petitions.Issue 2: Adjustment of refund against outstanding demands for assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14The demands raised by the 3rd respondent for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were outstanding to some extent. The petitioner, in an attempt to resolve the refund issue, requested assistance from the authority controlling TRACES to either refund the due amount or adjust it against the outstanding demands. However, despite these requests, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not take any action to refund the amount due or adjust it against the outstanding demands. The petitioner invoked Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, which allows setting off a refund against any remaining payable amount under the Act. The court noted that the authorities failed to exercise their powers under this section to refund the due amount or adjust it against the outstanding demands. Consequently, the court directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to adjust the refund due to the petitioner against the outstanding demands for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 within a stipulated timeframe of six weeks from the date of the court order.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, issues involved, and the court's decision regarding the refund due to the petitioner and its adjustment against outstanding demands.
TaxTMI 