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 Orders Tax Refund with Interest for Flextronics Software Systems; Criticizes Delayed Compliance by Assessing Officer.</h1> <h3>Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.</h3> Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. - [2023] 458 ITR 578 (Del) Issues:1. Refund of taxes paid by M/s Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. for the assessment year 2007-08.2. Disallowance of project expenses and deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act.3. Failure of the Assessing Officer to pass an order pursuant to the Tribunal's direction.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought directions for a refund of taxes paid by M/s Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. (FSSL) for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessment process involved scrutiny, addition of corporate charges, disallowance of project expenses, and deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the Draft Assessment Order, leading to a demand raised against FSSL, which was adjusted against a refund due for the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding certain issues back to the Transfer Pricing Officer and Assessing Officer. The petitioner claimed the refund due to FSSL, now amalgamated with the petitioner company, was time-barred, seeking its refund along with applicable interest.2. The Tribunal remanded the disallowance of deduction under Section 10B of the Act back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The petitioner relied on relevant judgments and decisions to support their claim for deduction under Section 10B. Despite opportunities, the Assessing Officer failed to pass an order following the Tribunal's direction. The court found merit in the contention that the income as returned by FSSL for the assessment year 2007-08 should stand accepted, directing the refund of the amount due for the assessment year 2006-07 to the petitioner along with applicable interest.3. The Assessing Officer's failure to pass an order pursuant to the Tribunal's direction was noted with displeasure by the court. Despite clear instructions, the officer did not comply within the prescribed time. The court allowed the petition, directing the refund of the amount due for the assessment year 2006-07 to the petitioner within eight weeks. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely compliance with tribunal directions and the need for proper assessment procedures to be followed diligently.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
