Apcotex Industries Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10
High Court
04 May 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Apcotex Industries Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10
Date of order
04 May 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Apcotex Industries Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Issue: The learned ACIT (10) (3) to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to the said refunds.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 560 OF 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 560 OF 2009
Apcotex Industries Limited.. Petitioner
vs
Commissioner of Income Tax-10
Mumbai & ors .. Respondents
..
Ms.Arti Vissanji with Mr.S.J.Mehta for
Petitioner.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondents
..
CORAM: F.I.Rebello andJ.H.Bhatia, JJ DATED: 4th May, 2009
CORAM: F.I.Rebello and
J.H.Bhatia, JJ
DATED: 4th May, 2009
P.C.
P.C.
1. Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court
against order dated 17th February, 2009. An
appeal against the order of assessment is pending
before the CESTAT. It appears that the appellant
did not ask for stay in the appeal. However, the
petitioner approached the A.O. seeking
non-execution of the order of assessment based on
the Circular issued by CBDT as the appeal was
pending. The A.O.rejected the application against
which the petitioner approached the Commissioner
of Income Tax who by his order dated 17th
February, 2009 has passed the following order:
" Accordingly, the assessee is required
to pay 50 % of the demand after adjusting
the amount of payments already made or
refunds adjusted or pending adjustment.
In other words, 50 % of the demand is
kept in abeyance and the balance demand
after necessary adjustments is to be paid
on 25.3.2009.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order.
It is the contention of the petitioner that they
are entitled to refund as set out in their
communication dated 3rd March, 2009 addressed to
the A.O. from Assessment Year 2003-04, two
Assessment years 2006-07, the sum worked out to be
about Rs.21,00,000/-.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
After perusal of the order dated 17th February,
2009 in our opinion, what the learned Commissioner
set out is:
(a) 50 % of the demand is stayed and
(b) In so far as balance 50 % amount is
concerned, the amount of refund is to be
adjusted and balance is to be paid.
5. In these circumstances, the amount of
Rs.22,00,000/- will have to be adjusted against
that 50 % .Demand is in the sum of Rs.52,76,482/-
as such 50 % would be Rs.26,00,000/- and odd.
From this amount of Rs.26,00,000/- a sum of
Rs.22,00,000/- will have to be adjusted and
balance therefore would be around Rs.4,00,000/-.
The learned ACIT (10) (3) to consider whether the
petitioner is entitled to the said refunds. In
the event the petitioner is so entitled then to
demand amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. If the petitioner
is not entitled to all the amounts then to the
extent the amounts are applicable to be adjusted.
Balance to be deposited. The entire exercise to
be completed within 4 weeks from today.
6. The petitioner to show his bonafides by
depositing a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within two weeks
from today.
Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to
costs.
{ J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J }
{ J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J }
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.