Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The Calcutta High Court, through Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, addressed a writ petition seeking a direction for refund of Rs. 3,91,678/- relating to the assessment year 2014-15, originally approved in favor of M/s. KNS Exports Private Limited. The petitioner company was amalgamated with KNS Exports pursuant to the National Company Law Tribunal's order dated 9th July 2019 (CP(CAA) No. 301/KB/2019), which sanctioned a scheme of amalgamation effective from 1st April 2018. The scheme explicitly provides that any tax refunds due to the transferor company (KNS Exports) post-amalgamation shall belong to and be received by the transferee company (the petitioner). Despite the petitioner notifying the Income Tax Officer and surrendering KNS Exports' PAN, and subsequent written requests to credit the refund to the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondents. The Court held that, given the sanctioned scheme and the amalgamation order, the respondents must process the petitioner's representation and effectuate the refund in its favor. The Court directed the respondents to decide on the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, preferably within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.