{"id":26713,"date":"2022-04-27T12:54:47","date_gmt":"2022-04-27T07:24:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-ltd-v-adit-2022-284-taxman-647-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2022-04-27T12:54:47","modified_gmt":"2022-04-27T07:24:47","slug":"bharat-petroleum-corporation-ltd-v-adit-2022-284-taxman-647-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/bharat-petroleum-corporation-ltd-v-adit-2022-284-taxman-647-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. ADIT (2022) 284 Taxman 647 (Bom.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee\u00a0 has paid the demand of\u00a0 20 percent of tax in dispute. The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving intimation under section 245 of the Act. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that the\u00a0 Assessing Officer shall grant stay of demand where outstanding demand is disputed on petitioner paying 20 per cent of disputed demand\u00a0 hence the\u00a0 petitioner cannot be treated as\u00a0 deemed to be an assessee-in-default for recovery provisions. Court also held that where petitioner was entitled to refund from revenue and revenue sought to adjust this refund amount against demand that it had against petitioner, however, no intimation under section 245 was given before making adjustment, impugned adjustment of refund was unjustified, hence, petitioner would be entitled to refund of entire amount together with accumulated interest, if any, in accordance with law<strong>.<\/strong> (AY. 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Paid 20 percent of disputed demand-Assessee cannot be held to be assessee deemed to be in default-Adjustment of refund without giving an intimation u\/s. 245 of the Act is held to be bad in law-Directed to  refund with accumulated interest. [S. 245, 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-26713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-6WR","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26713","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=26713"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26713\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26714,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26713\/revisions\/26714"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}