2016 (4) TMI 816 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The Peerless General Finance And Inv. Co. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata -I
Question for adjudication is whether the Authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction in making the intimation. Submissions are to be made and heard on that question along with on the further question as to what is an order under the Income-tax Act, 1961, whether an intimation under Section 245 proposing to take steps, which ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 256 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Arijit Chaudhuri Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax And Another
Notice under Section 245 - Held that - Since the primary basis for adjustment is a notice under Section 245 of the Act and the Department cannot demonstrate that such notice was issued to the petitioner, the purported adjustment sought to be made stands set aside.
2015 (10) TMI 1770 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) & Others Versus State Bank of India & Another
Refund of entire amount coercively recovered along with 15 interest per annum as per sections 240 and 244(1) seeked - Held that - In the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accept the request, namely, that a decision will be taken by the authority regarding the refund in accordance with law, which would include the right to consider whether, under Section 245 of the Act, a case is made out for adjustment of the refund against the demand for the year 2015-2016. We have adverted to the various principles and situations, in which Section 245 can operate. It may not be exhaustive. The of ....... - .......
2015 (10) TMI 1902 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Arun Ganesh Jogdeo Versus Union of India And Another
Incorrect notices under Sections 244 and 245 of the Income Tax Act - seeking recovery from number of income tax assessees - Held that - At since the directions given by the Delhi High Court 2013 (3) TMI 316 - DELHI HIGH COURT have now been complied by the Income Tax Department, it is not necessary to issue any further directions. The Delhi High Court has given the following directions - - (i) Directions given in paragraph 16 to 18 regarding maintenance of register for applications under Section 154, receipt of the said applications and their disposal. - (ii) We have confirmed the interim direc ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 366 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (1) And Others
Adjustment of refund due with demands outstanding - Unconditional stay granted under Section 220(6) of the Act - Discretionary power of adjustment - Adjustment depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case - Sanctity of order passed by an superior officer - Held that - It is an admitted position that there is no demand outstanding/payable for Assessment year 2004-05. Thus no occasion to adjust any part of the refund due to the petitioner for Assessment year 2005-06 to meet a non existing demand for A.Y. 2004-05 can arise. Consequent demanding of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act ....... - .......
2015 (7) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Union of India Versus Sundaram Asset Management Co., Ltd. (Formerly known as Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset Management Company Limited)
Adjustment of Refund with the demand without proper information to assessee - Stay under Section 220(6) - Held that - On a careful consideration of respective contentions and this Court taking note of the entire gamut of the attended facts and circumstances of the instant case in an integral manner comes to an inevitable conclusion that Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 makes it crystalline clear that the Income Tax Officer might, in lieu of payment of refund set-off the amount to be refunded against the sum payable by an individual, but only after furnishing information in writing to hi ....... - .......
2014 (10) TMI 746 - DELHI HIGH COURT
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another
Violation of principles of natural justice Opportunity of being heard not provided Mandatory requirement u/s 245 not fulfilled - Adjustment of refund against outstanding penalty demand Held that - As decided in Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P.) Ltd v. CIT 2007 (1) TMI 113 - DELHI High Court - before invoking the power u/s 245, the officer is expected to give an intimation in writing to the assessee to whom the refund is due informing him of the action proposed to be taken under the section - On the same date on which the intimation was issued the adjustment was made simultaneously - This is contrary ....... - .......
2015 (5) TMI 313 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ANR. Versus DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOL & ORS.
Refund set off against the Income-tax demand - Held that - If an amount of refund of ₹ 42,96,720 has been set off against the above Income-tax demand, by the Income-tax authorities without notice to the writ petitioners they have acted contrary to this Division Bench judgment of CIT v. J. K. Industries Ltd. 2000 (3) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA High Court wherein observed that the Income tax Department could not unilaterally adjust the amount due on refund against a tax demand without giving a notice to the assessee - If that is the case, the Department will immediately remit that amount to the acc ....... - .......
2013 (5) TMI 685 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
Adjustment of the refund against sum payable by an assessee - whether the respondent is empowered to adjust the refund amount automatically without complying with the provisions of Section 245 - Held that - It is crystal clear that the AO Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner Vin lieu of payment of the refund, set-off the amount to be refunded or any part of that amount, against the sum, if any, remaining payable under the Act by the person to whom the refund is due, after giving an intimation in writing to such person of the action propose ....... - .......
2013 (5) TMI 335 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
MONTECARLO LTD. Versus ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & 1
Refund claim adjustment against tax dues - Held that - Had the petitioner s claim for refund crystallized into an indefeasible right, such contention was perhaps possible to be accepted. In the present case, neither the computation of the refund payable to the petitioner under the return filed for the AY 2008-09 nor its right to seek such refund had been crystallized. The return for the A.Y 2008-09 was not yet processed. Till this exercise ....... - .......
2013 (3) TMI 316 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS & ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Whether computerisation and Central Processing of Income Tax Returns is a boon or bane - Letter by CA Anand Prakash was treated as PIL - held that - the respondents have taken a right decision to computerise the income tax records, have Central Processing Unit for processing of returns and issue of refunds. Besides, these steps relate to policy and fall within the exclusive domain of the respondents. These steps have to be appreciated as they ensure transparency, openness, eliminate high handedness and curtail corruption/red tapism. - UPLOADING OF WRONG OR FICTITIOUS DEMAND - Rectification u/s ....... - .......
2013 (3) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M/s USHA POLYTEX LTD Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS
Adjustment of Refund with Tax Demand of a Group company - as per dept. the amount refundable to the petitioner has been adjusted towards the demand of M/S Narain Properties Ltd., the Mall, Kanpur a group of company of assessee - Held that - As per Section 245 where any refund is due to any person, the Income-tax authorities may set off the amount to be refunded against any sum remaining payable under the Act by the person to whom refund is due, after giving him an intimation in writing to such person. Thus Section 245 authorizes for set off the refund against the dues of the same person that t ....... - .......
2013 (6) TMI 194 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
JEANS KNIT PVT LTD, BANGALORE Versus (1) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE, (2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE
Adjustment of refund with tax demand - provisions of section 245 - prior intimation - 100 EOU - held that - in view of the decision in Fosroc Chemicals (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income tax and another 2000 (11) TMI 100 - KARNATAKA High Court , the impugned communication adjusting the refund without prior intimation to the petitioner is illegal and contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned communication at Annexure-A1 in so far is it relates to adjusting of refund is to be set-aside. The matter is required to be remanded to the first respondent to follo ....... - .......
2012 (9) TMI 163 - DELHI HIGH COURT
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Difficulties in receiving credit of Tax Deducted at Source - Held that - Section 245 envisages prior intimation to the assessee so that he can respond before any adjustment of refund is made towards a demand relating to any other assessment year. Thus opportunity of response/reply is given and after considering the stand and plea of the assesse, an order/direction for adjustment when justified and proper is made. The section postulates and mandates a two stage action. Prior intimation, and then a subsequent action when warranted and necessary of adjustment, of the refund towards arrears - as a ....... - .......
2012 (12) TMI 904 - DELHI HIGH COURT
LEASE PLAN INDIA & ANR. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX
Refund adjusted against demand Adjustment of refund without prior notice or intimation - Demand stayed by order of High Court Violation of Stay order Later on Revenue, in respect of a later period, sought to adjust the amounts due to the writ petitioner, by way of refund - Held that - When an order of stay of recovery in simplistic and absolute terms is passed, it would be improper and inappropriate on the part of the Revenue to recover the demand by way of adjustment. Revenue s contention is insubstantial & over-reach and circumvent the stay order. Therefore, the impugned adjustment sough ....... - .......