Disposed

Apcotex Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income TAX-10 and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC4 May 2009WP/560/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Petition No. 560 of 2009, on the highest terms devoid of any substantive holding, ruled that the CIT's order directing 50% payment after refund adjustment was regular. The court made the rule absolute without issuing directions to quash or modify.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; petition dismissed implicitly by not granting relief.

Apcotex Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income TAX-10 and 2 Ors. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO. 560 OF 2009

¶2

 Apcotex Industries Limited.. Petitioner

¶3

vs

¶4

 Commissioner of Income Tax-10
 Mumbai & ors .. Respondents

¶5

 Ms.Arti Vissanji with Mr.S.J.Mehta for
 Petitioner.

¶6

 Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondents

¶7

CORAM: F.I.Rebello and
J.H.Bhatia, JJ
 DATED: 4th May, 2009
P.C.

¶8

 1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶9

 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:

¶10

 " 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.

¶11

 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.

¶12

 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/-.

¶13

 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:

¶14

 (a) 50 % of the demand is stayed and

¶15

 (b) In so far as balance 50 % amount is
 concerned, the amount of refund is to be
 adjusted and balance is to be paid.

¶16

 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

¶17

 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.

¶18

 6. The petitioner to show his bonafides by
 depositing a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- within two weeks
 from today.

¶19

 Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to
 costs.

¶20

{ J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J }

Apcotex Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income TAX-10 and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apcotex Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income TAX-10 and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Msc Agency (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner of Customs ( Imports ) Mumbai Vs Kazi Hussain Shaikh Dawood

International Aircharter Operation (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Paresh Patinum Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hotel Sahil Ltd. Vs a.K.Thata and Anr.