2015 (12) TMI 1289 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Vasu Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Recovery proceedings - assessee prayed for refund of the amount already recovered by the department by attaching the petitioner s bank account - deduction under section 80IB(10) disallowed - Held that - For whatever reason if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that such deduction was not allowable, such findings could have been recorded. However, in the present case, we prima facie find that after rejecting the assessee s revised valuation .....
2015 (12) TMI 113 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Gupta Versus Commissioner of Income Tax And Others
Reduction of interest payable under Section 220(2) to 25 - entitlement for complete waiver of the interest - Held that - In the facts and circumstances, the authority had applied its mind to the situation while granting 75 waiver of the interest. It is not correct to state that the Commissioner did not apply its mind though we do find that proper reasoning has not been given. However, by not giving such proper reasoning it does not mean that the .....
2015 (12) TMI 1331 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. N. Jegatheesan Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
When tax payable and when assessee deemed in default - powers under Sections 220(3) & 220(6) - validity of CBDT Instruction - Held that - It is incorrect to state that DBDT Instruction No.1914, dated 02.12.1993 supersedes all previous instructions. Although instruction No.1914 specifically states that it is in supersession of earlier instructions, the position obtaining after the decision of the case in Volvoline Cummins Limited Vs. DCIT (200.....
2015 (12) TMI 116 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M/s Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another
Stay application - recovery proceedings - Held that - It is true that while considering an application for stay, it is neither expedient nor appropriate for the Court to initiate a detailed enquiry to find out whether the stand of the assessee is on solid ground, because expression of a final opinion on the merits at that stage, without examining the entire material and affording full opportunity of hearing, is likely to cause prejudice to either.....
2015 (10) TMI 2185 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. (As Transferee Company Into Which M/s. Henkel India Limited Has Merged) Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, The Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU
Stay of disputed outstanding demand seeked - Held that - Since the regular appeal is not yet disposed of and since by the order passed under Section 220(6), the Assessing Officer was likely to review the conditional order, the appellant apprehends that some more levy may be imposed. BR BR The above grievance of the appellant could easily be redressed. As against the original assessment completed on 28.5.2014, the appellant did not go on appeal. T.....
2015 (10) TMI 1903 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Surat Urban Development Authority Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
Stay of demand - writ petition - Registration under section 12A denied - Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the petitioner as ₹ 48,22,54,670/- and raised a demand of ₹ 20,41,52,870/- in scrutiny assessment - stay petition submitted - Held that - From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it is apparent that none of the exceptions laid down by in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013 (.....
2015 (10) TMI 2056 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Jamnagar Area Development Authority Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) (Exemptions) -Ahmedabad
Stay of demand rejected - Held that - Since facts are more or less similar and the contentions raised before this court were also similar of in the case of Surat Urban Development Authority v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) 2015 (10) TMI 1903 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT a similar order is required to be passed in the present case. However, considering the fact that an amount equal to two installments has already been recovered from the p.....
2015 (10) TMI 817 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Leviability of interest under Section 12 and 12A of the Interest Tax Act and Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act on assessee - Held that - The proceedings impugned in the present appeal are only consequential to the original order of assessment. The original order of assessment has been upheld by this court 2014 (9) TMI 429 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the order of the Tribunal got reversed. It was on the basis of the very same order of the Tribu.....
2015 (9) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M/s. Mookambika Associates Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax And Others
Waiver of interest under Section 220(2) rejected - whether petitioner suffered genuine hardship? - Held that - petitioner, a partnership firm, did not submit its returns for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 within the time stipulated but did so only after the machinery provided under the Income Tax Act was put into force i.e. a search conducted and notice issued, pursuant to which returns were filed on 20.9.2010. The conduct of the petitioner speaks .....
2015 (10) TMI 478 - ITAT BANGALORE
Shri J.P. Narayanaswamy Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8 (1) , Bangalore
Levy of interest under Section 220(2) - contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has wrongly computed the interest under Section 220(2) from the date of original demand i.e. 30.4.2013 till the date of order giving effect to the order of the Hon ble High Court on 22.3.2012 - Held that - In case the Hon ble High Court had confirmed the relief granted by Tribunal, the inevitable conclusion will be that the original notice of demand will.....
2015 (9) TMI 500 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Kanpur Versus M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Rectification of mistake - interest under Section 220(2) of the Act was charged from the date of the original Assessment Order dated 26.3.1992.- Held that - In the instant case, the original demand pursuant to the first Assessment Order dated 26.3.1992 was duly satisfied and the amount was refunded pursuant to the first rectification order passed under Section 154 on 15.9.1994. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Vikrant Ty.....
2015 (9) TMI 1349 - ITAT CHENNAI
M/s. Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Non Corporate Circle – 20, Chennai
Stay of recovery of tax demand - AO stay asking to the assessee to pay 50 of the outstanding demand in 18 equal monthly instalments. However, the assessee has not complied with the order of the AO granting the stay - Assessee failed to get relief from CIT(A), CCIT, CBDT - Now, the plea of the ld. AR is that absolute stay to be granted to the assessee as the assessee is Golden Egg laying Goose and immediate recovery of the outstanding disputed amo.....
2015 (9) TMI 1050 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shri Badri Nath Agnihotri Versus Income Tax Officer And Others
Recovery of tax and stay operation - Held that - Since the order passed by the Assessing officer under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not under challenge, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the same. Therefore, we hereby provide that if the petitioner is not in a position to follow the same, he may challenge it before the appellate authority, who shall consider it and pass appropriate order. BR BR Learned counsel fo.....
2015 (9) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Others
Stay on balance demand of tax denied - no financial difficulty is caused by the deposit - Held that - As decided in UTI Mutual Fund Vs. ITO 2013 (3) TMI 350 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where a strong prima facie case has been made out in its favour by the assessee, the requirement of predeposit would by itself be a matter of hardship. BR BR We are informed that the CIT (Appeals) has already commenced the hearing of petitioner s appeal filed from the asse.....
2015 (10) TMI 948 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B. Bala Narasimha Reddy Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax And Another
Waiver of interest under Section 220(2) rejected - non-payment of amount, within time - Held that - A perusal of the impugned order, which is extracted above, shows that the 1st respondent Commissioner, has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 220(2A) of the Act and has passed an order bereft of reasons. BR BR The settled legal proposition is that the impugned order itself shall contain reasons j.....