{"id":24278,"date":"2022-01-22T17:46:39","date_gmt":"2022-01-22T12:16:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/eko-india-financial-services-p-ltd-v-acit-2021-205-dtr-113-322-ctr-201-283-taxman-584-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2022-01-22T17:46:39","modified_gmt":"2022-01-22T12:16:39","slug":"eko-india-financial-services-p-ltd-v-acit-2021-205-dtr-113-322-ctr-201-283-taxman-584-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/eko-india-financial-services-p-ltd-v-acit-2021-205-dtr-113-322-ctr-201-283-taxman-584-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"Eko India Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 205 DTR 113 \/ 322 CTR 201 \/ 283 Taxman 584 (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Assessing Officer had\u00a0 adjusted\u00a0 in excess of 20 per cent, of refund due against the tax liability. The Assessee filed writ petition and contended that the adjustment was contrary to guidelines contained in Instruction No. 1914, dated 21-3-1996.\u00a0 Allowing the petition the Court held that order under section 245 for adjustments of refunds did not give any special\/particular reason as to why any amount in excess of 20 per cent of outstanding demand was recovered from assessee and department was entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20 per cent of disputed demand. Assessing Officer was directed to refund amount adjusted in excess of 20 per cent of disputed demand. (AY. 2017-18)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment  refunds in excess of 20% of outstanding is contrary to  instruction No 1914 of  21-3-1996-Assessing Officer   was directed to refund amount adjusted in excess of 20 per cent of disputed demand. [S. 220, Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24278","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-6jA","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24278","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24278"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24278\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24279,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24278\/revisions\/24279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24278"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24278"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}