2023 (6) TMI 442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MIT MAHAJAN For the Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 17.11.2022, whereby a sum of Rs.6,27,20,736/-, which was payable to the petitioner, was adjusted by the respondents against the demand for a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice why the adjustment of Rs.6,27,20,736/- not be made against the demand outstanding for the Assessment Year 2019-20; the respondents had proceeded to adjust the said amount and issued a refund for the balance amount (Rs.24,94,15,824/-) on 17.11.2021. The petitioner claims that it was entitled to receive the entire refund of Rs.31,21,36,560/- without any adjustment under Section 245 of the....
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
TaxTMI