2014 (9) TMI 551

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has come up with the above writ petition challenging a condition imposed by the second respondent for the grant of stay pending disposal of an appeal. 2. Heard Mr.B.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. 3. The petitioner sold a property, on which, capital gains were assessed. This led to an order of a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n made by the second respondent, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Citing the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Soul Vs. Deputy CIT [(2010) 323 ITR 305] and the Bombay High Court in Nishith Madanlal Desai Vs. CIT [(2012) 345 ITR 545], the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the financial crunch of the petitioner is accepted, there is no justification for imposing a con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the demand on or before 30.9.2014; and (ii) in respect of the balance of 15% of the demand, the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee. Upon the petitioner complying with these two conditions, there will be an interim stay pending disposal of the appeal before the second respondent. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed.
Case laws, Decisions, J .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X