Allowed

Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax TDS-2(3) and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2019WP/1809/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, responding to a petitioner's readiness to adjust a 1994-95 refund toward a disputed TDS demand, directed the department to adjust the refund to meet the 20% deposit requirement pending appeal. The department was ordered to release the balance refund after the adjustment.

What did the court decide?

The respondent to adjust the refund to meet the 20% TDS demand and release the remaining balance.

Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

24 wp 1809 of 2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 2019

¶3

Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing
Co. Ltd.

¶4

…Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
TDS-2(3) and Ors.

¶7

…
Respondents

¶8

Mr. Madhur Agarwal I/by Mr. Atul Jasani, for Petitioner.
Mr. P.C.Chhotaray, for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM:AKIL KURESHI &
S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE: 15th JULY, 2019

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. The Petitioner is facing a demand of short deduction of tax at source, for

¶12

which the Officer has passed an order on 28th March, 2019. Against this order, the
Petitioner has filed an Appeal which is pending. Pending such appeal, the department
insists that the Petitioner must deposit 20% of the disputed amount subject to which

¶13

remaining recovery would be stayed. The case of the Petitioner is that for an earlier
assessment year 1994-95, pursuant to the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, the Petitioner has to receive sizeable amount of refund which far exceeds the
20% of the TDS demand. In a communication dated 3rd May, 2019, the Petitioner
conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and showed willingness
for adjustment of the refund to the extent the TDS demand (20% of the full) was being

¶14

SSP 1/2

¶15

24 wp 1809 of 2019.doc

¶16

pressed by the department. Since the department did not accept this formula, this
Petition has been filed.

¶17

2.Learned Counsel Shri Chhotarary appearing for the Department stated on
instructions that prima facie the Petitioner is correct in pointing out that in relation to
the assessment for the assessment year 1994-95, the Petitioner has to receive certain
refund. He however, submitted that unless directed by this Court, such refund cannot
be adjusted against the TDS demand.

¶18

3.In the present case, when the Petitioner had showed willingness for
adjustment of the part of the refund towards its ad-hoc TDS liable pending appeal, we
see no reason why the department should not adjust the same and release the rest of
the refund if otherwise payable. The Petitioner has already showed willingness for
such adjustment under the said letter dated 3rd May, 2019. The Respondents shall act

¶19

accordingly on such consent of the Petitioner, adjust to the extent necessary for
meeting the requirement of 20% of the TDS demand out of the refund payable. This
would comply with the requirement of depositing 20% of the TDS pending appeal to
enjoy stay against further recovery. We expect the department even otherwise to

¶20

process the refund and release the balance if any that may become due and payable to
the Petitioner.

¶21

4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. )

¶23

SSP 2/2

Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax TDS-2(3) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax TDS-2(3) and 3 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

Firoza Sohrab Anklesaria Vs Sohrab Tehmton Anklesaria

Mrs.Daksha Piyush Paradva Vs Mr.Piyush K. Paradva

Mrs.Daksha Piyush Paradva Vs Mr.Piyush K. Paradva

Naresh Manakchand Jain Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-20 and 5 Ors.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-2 Vs M/S Centaur Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.

Pr.Commissioner of Income TAX,CENTRAL-4 Vs M/S.Paramshakti Distributors Pvt.Ltd