9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT] and Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax: [ 2011 (11) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - However, till the Commissioner of Income Tax does not decide the application, no coercive measure be taken by the respondent to recover the amount in question. - WP (C) 1701/2013 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2013 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And R V Easwar JJ. For the Appellants: Mr M.S. Syali, Sr Advocate with Mr Satyen Sethi and Mr Arta Trana Panda For the Respondents: Mr Abhishek Maratha with Ms Anshul Sharma JUDGEMENT:- CAV 234-235/2013 1. The learned counsel for the respondent /caveator is present. The caveats stand discharged. CM 3222/2013 2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 1701/2013 and CM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount of Rs. 22 crores by 15.03.2013 staying the balance amount for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever was earlier. 7. Mr Syali, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that while the Commissioner of Income Tax has rightly given credit for tax on covered issues to the extent of Rs. 5 crores in respect of the current assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2010-11, the Commissioner of Income Tax should have taken a holistic view and should have also examined the fact that the Revenue had demanded tax and adjusted refunds against the same in respect of other assessment years including the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in which the very same covered issues had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner as well as the amounts paid by the Petitioner, as has actually been done by the Tribunal in its order dated July 29, 2005, then the petitioner would be entitled to a refund. On the other hand, if each year is taken separately, then of course there would be a liability against the Petitioner for the assessment year 2003-04 but such a narrow or constricted view does not commend itself to us since it would unnecessarily deprive an assessed of good money due to it from the Revenue. Looked at in this larger perspective, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to the relief prayed for since it has, quite clearly, paid more than the amount that is due if the order passed by the Special Bench is implemented." 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
