9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the recovery of tax in respect of the assessment year 201011 on condition that the petitioner pays the outstanding tax amount of Rs.654.16 Crores in 10 equal installments from the month of September 2013 to June 2014. 2) Mr. Dastur, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a statutory authority established under the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority Act 1974. The petitioner has merely stepped into the shoes of the CIDCO by virtue of Notification dated 7 March 1977 under the provisions of the aforesaid Act as the Special Planning Authority. It is submitted that in the case of CIDCO itself, the revenue sought to subject it tax in the Assessment Year 200607 and stay of the demand had been reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perpetual succession is a distinct legal entity and therefore, it cannot claim any exemption from tax as an agent of the State Government. It is further submitted that the exemption has rightly been denied to the petitioner in view of the amendment in Section 2(15) of the Act by addition of a proviso with effect from 12 April 2013. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the department that the petitioner has not only been collecting large sums for development of the property but it has also even received interest income to the tune of Rs.134 Crores from the loans, advances made to other parties. The decision of the Tribunal in the matter of CIDCO(supra) is sought to be distinguished on the ground that there is no issue of earning o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng an Agent of the Government. This requires some factual examination and would be done by the Authorities. In view of the above, we were inclined to grant conditional stay of the demand upon deposit of 25% of the total tax demand. But we find that out of the total demand of Rs.850.69 Crores an amount of Rs.196.53 Crores has already been recovered by the department by way of adjusting the refund for other assessment years as indicated above. The petitioner has thus already paid almost about 23% of the total tax demand. We are informed that the appeal of the petitioner for the assessment year 201011 is already fixed for hearing before the CIT(Appeals) on 21 November 2013, when these issues would be considered in depth and decided. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
