https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759331 Excess surcharge demand was treated as resolved for the impugned assessment year after the Revenue stated that the amount had already been corrected and remitted. The Court nevertheless found that a similar excess surcharge demand had been generated for the subsequent year because the processing system mechanically applied surcharge at 37%, and held that a software-driven error could not justify repeated harassment of the assessee. It directed the Revenue to withdraw the excess surcharge demand immediately and required CBDT to ensure suitable correction of the software so the error would not recur. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Sep 2024 09:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759331 Excess surcharge demand was treated as resolved for the impugned assessment year after the Revenue stated that the amount had already been corrected and remitted. The Court nevertheless found that a similar excess surcharge demand had been generated for the subsequent year because the processing system mechanically applied surcharge at 37%, and held that a software-driven error could not justify repeated harassment of the assessee. It directed the Revenue to withdraw the excess surcharge demand immediately and required CBDT to ensure suitable correction of the software so the error would not recur. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759331