TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, to the Learned First Respondent to grant refund of sum determined as per rectified order passed under section 154 dated 28.03.2024 for AY 2019-20 and to hold that set-off of refund of AY 2019-20 is bad in law. The rectified Order is enclosed as Annexure-J. (b) Issue as far as Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, directing the learned Respondent to grant interest on refund as stipulated under section 244A for AY 2019-20." In W.P.No.4179/2025, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "(a) Issue as far as Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or Order in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise, to the Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent to forthwith refund Rs. 21,08,91,940/-, being demand recovered in excess of 20% of the demand raised for the assessment year 2012-13, along with applicable interest; (ii) Directing the 1st / 2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal pending before it for the assessment year 2012-13 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bengaluru-1/10224/2015-16 (old appeal No. 9/10002/2017-18 (Manual Appeal Register No. 40/BU/2015-16)) (Annexure-0B dated 29.04.2015 in a time bound manner, expeditiously; (iii) Directing the Respondents not to enforce the balance demand raised vide demand notice dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-A2) until disposal of the appeal by the 1st / 2nd Respondent and for a period of three weeks thereafter; and (iv) Pass such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich is the maximum of amount of pre-deposit to be made by the petitioner, who is before this Court seeking direction for refund of the amounts adjusted in excess of 20% and for direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible. 4. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pan Synthetics Private Limited and Centralized Processing Centre and others -W.P. No. 9835/2024 dated 23.07.2024 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondent No.1 woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 2016-17 which is stated to have been adjusted as against the refund due for the assessment year 2023-24. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that for the assessment year 2016-17, the third respondent has passed an assessment order and raised a demand on 26.05.2023, and for the assessment year 2015-16, the third respondent has passed an assessment order and raised the demand on 30.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved by such orders, appeals were filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax and the petitioner had filed an application seeking for stay of the demand for the assessment year 2015-16 as per Annexure-M and similar application was filed seeking stay of demand for the Assessment Year 2016-17 at Annexure-N. Petitioner submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to refund the amount of 80% of the demand for the assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 as already been adjusted. Such refund to be made within a period of eight weeks from today. 8. Accordingly the petition is disposed off. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents were clearly not justified in adjusting the refund amounts payable to the petitioner in excess of 20% and consequently, necessary directions have to be issued to the respondents to refund the entire amounts payable to the petitioner in excess of 20% of the demand for the assessment year 2012-13 within a stipulated time frame ....