Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Both these appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 10/04/2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Faridabad, for Assessment Year 2009-10. 

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.04.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee gainst the order dated 27.05.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the orders all dated 31.10.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. ITA 54/CHD/2020 is taken up first for adjudication.ITA 54

Heard Mr. J. D. Mistri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel revenue for respondent No.1; and Mr. R. V. Desai, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.

Subject matter and reliefs sought for in all the writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

Heard Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajshekhar Govilkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to forthwith grant and sanction interest on the refund amount after expiry of three months from the respective dates of applicatio

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the counsels for the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission.

It is the petitioner’s case that it owed monies to an entity, going by the name, Shridham Distributors Private Limited [in short 'SDPL']. According to the petitioner, the debt owed to SDPL was defrayed, by transferring Zero Coupon Optionally Convert