Greatship (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226] The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the Assessing Officer exercising powers under section 245 of the Act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. On facts…
Result: Disposed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 245
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226] The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the Assessing Officer exercising powers under section 245 of the Act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. On facts…
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Greatship (India) Limited Digitally signed by One International Centre, SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR Tower 3, 23rd foor, Senapati Bapat Mar,, TALEKAR Date: 2022.07.18 Elphinstone Road (West), 15:06:04 +0530 Mumbai-400 013 ....Petitioner
*** Mr. Jeet Kamdar i/b Mr.Atul K Jasani for petitioner.
1. By this petition, the petitioner challen,es the action of
petitioner on November 17, 2021, when the petitioner downloaded
3. The petitioner’s case further is that an amount of
Appellant / assessee submissions
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner ur,ed that the action of
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
11. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
Source and subsequent history
Primary record: Official primary source search pending
Later-history status: Review / appeal / SLP status: check pending
High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226] The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the Assessing Officer exercising powers under section 245 of the Act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. On facts…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with s. 245 : refund-set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [art. 226] the assessing officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. on writ allowing the petition the court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the assessing officer exercising powers under section 245 of the act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the act is not exercised arbitrarily. on facts… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending |
| Repository release | Published |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Greatship (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)?
S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226] The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the Assessing Officer exercising powers under section 245 of the Act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. On facts…
Which facts matter most?
Greatship (India) Limited Digitally signed by One International Centre, SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR Tower 3, 23rd foor, Senapati Bapat Mar,, TALEKAR Date: 2022.07.18 Elphinstone Road (West), 15:06:04 +0530 Mumbai-400 013 ....Petitioner
What did the Bombay High Court decide?
11. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226] The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the Assessing Officer exercising powers under section 245 of the Act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. On facts…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
245
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226] The Assessing Officer adjusted the refund without giving any prior intimation. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that where a party raises objection in response to the intimation, the Assessing Officer exercising powers under section 245 of the Act must record reasons why the objection was not sustainable and also communicate it to the assessee and this would ensure that the power of adjustment under section 245 of the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. On facts… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- 245 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Agreeko Energy Rental Vs DCIT - ITAT Pune
- BASHIR AHMAD SOFI V ITO WARD 1 - ITAT Amritsar
- Chennai Port Authority v. NFAC - Madras High Court
Different outcome / possible distinction
- PCIT v. Khyati Realtors Private Limited - Quashed / set aside
- PCIT Chandigarh v. ABC Papers Limited - Dismissed
Related Finin2min resources
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Published
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Sections and statute
The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Section 245