Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Precision Camshafts Ltd vs Assi. Commissioner Of Income -Tax ... on 15 December, 2022

Author: Abhay Ahuja

Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Abhay Ahuja

                                                              8. WP 15316-22.doc
Chittewan




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO.15316 OF 2022

Precision Camshafts Limited
Solapur                                         ...    Petitioner.
      Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income
Tax, Circle-1, Solapur
And Others                                      ...  Respondents
                                 ***
Jitendra Jain i/b Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner.
Samiksha Kanani i/b Ajeet Manwani for the Respondent.
                                 ***
                  CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR &
                            ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

DATE : 15 DECEMBER 2022 P.C. . The Petitioner states that with a view to get beneft of low taxation at 20 per cent in terms of Section 115BAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the Petitioner fled Form No.10-IC for the assessment year 2020-21, which was accepted and the return processed at the rate of 20 per cent for the year 2020-21. It is states that the Petitioner flled up ITR Form 6, in which the Petitioner without flling up the Form No.10-IC, yet again was entitled to the tax at the lower rate at 20 per cent of the income. The income returned was Rs.74,47,38,250/-, on which the system correctly calculated the tax liability at the rate of 20 per cent at Rs.18,70,21,534/-. It is stated that due to some error attributable to the system, the intimation in view of Section 143(1) dated 21 1/2

8. WP 15316-22.doc Chittewan July 2022 received by the Petitioner indicates an additional demand payable at Rs.8,87,54,810/-. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the amount which is sought to be recovered by way of impugned demand notice dated 8 September 2022 is legally untenable. With a view to support the case of the Petitioner, Mr. Jain, submits that for the assessment year 2022-23, the Respondents have correctly calculated the tax at the rate of 20 per cent. He further stated that the additional amount of Rs.8,87,54,810/-, which is demanded represents 10 per cent, which is sought to be levied upon the Petitioner calculating the tax at the rate of 30 per cent.

2 Issue notice to the Respondents. Service waived by learned Counsel, Samiksha Kanani for the Respondents. 3 In the meantime, additional demand of Rs.8,87,54,810/- sought to be recovered by the impugned demand notice dated 8 September 2022 is stayed.

4 List for consideration on 17 March 2023.




(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)                                        (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.)

                   Digitally signed by
 RAJESH            RAJESH VASANT
 VASANT            CHITTEWAN

 CHITTEWAN
                   Date: 2022.12.17
                   12:16:47 +0530
                                                                                           2/2