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>Refund Petition Dismissed; Court Directs New Representation for Additional Tax Claim of Rs. 7,00,000 for 1990-1991.</h1> <h3>M/s. Narayanan Chettiar Industries, Represented by its Partner Rm. Subramaniyam Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 12 (1), Chennai, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Range 12, Chennai</h3> M/s. Narayanan Chettiar Industries, Represented by its Partner Rm. Subramaniyam Versus The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 12 (1), Chennai, The ... Issues Involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the entitlement of the petitioner to a refund under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 1990-1991, and the decision on further payment due to the petitioner.Entitlement to Refund under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A): The Writ Petition was filed seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to issue the refund due to the petitioner in PAN : AACFN7700N for the Assessment Year 1990-1991 under Sections 244A(1) and 244A(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was noted that during the pendency of the petition, a sum of Rs. 54,13,466/- was credited to the petitioner by the respondents. However, the petitioner claimed that an additional sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was still outstanding and had not been paid by the respondents. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had received substantial relief during the pendency of the petition but held that the decision on whether the petitioner was entitled to the further amount could not be made immediately. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent detailing the outstanding amounts within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The first respondent was instructed to dispose of the representation within thirty days thereafter. Ultimately, the Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs.Decision on Further Payment: The Court, after considering the submissions from both the petitioner's counsel and the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, decided that the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to a further amount could not be conclusively determined in the writ petition. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to provide a fresh representation to the first respondent specifying the outstanding amounts for further consideration and disposal within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
