Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 367 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTApplication for issue of Notification under Section 80IA4(iii) rejected - Held that:- The impugned order for rejecting application is a speaking order. It is a settled principle of law that a person who claims benefit of exemption from payment of taxes has to fully satisfy the provisions extending the benefit. Data furnished by the applicant, being inconsistent and divergent does not lead to a conclusive inference regarding whether the total allocation for industrial use is actually 75% keeping in view the discrepancies in area as well as ambiguity about industrial activities carried out in several units owned by individuals and families, which has remained unspecified. Moreover, the unsubstantiated claim about the fulfillment of conditions pertaining to commercial activity also does not prove that the same is in accordance with para 4(2A) of the Scheme. In fact, the inconsistencies in data and manipulation of information does not lead to evidences on the basis of which the application deserves approval.Despite giving many opportunities and substantial time for compliance, satisfactory explanation has not been filed. It has thus not been found to be a fit case for notification u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Hence, the competent authority has decided to reject the application. - Decided against assessee. Stay application - Held that:- We are not inclined to stay this order for the reason that the assessment order for Assessment Year 2011-12 has already been passed on 28.3.2014 and the amounts due thereunder have not been paid only because of its application for benefit of Section 80IB(4) was pending before the CBDT. We did indicate to Mr.Jhaveri that in case the petitioner deposit the entire amount of demand attributable to the claim under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, we would be inclined to grant stay. This was unacceptable to the petitioner. At this stage Mr.Jhaveri states that the petitioner is ready to offer security. We are not inclined to accept it. Accordingly, the application for stay of this order is rejected. - Decided against assessee.
|