TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2006-07 has deleted such disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 40(a)(i), we are of the considered opinion that, at least prima-facie, the assessee has made out a case for stay of demand on this issue. - Stay granted. - IT Appeal No. 803 (Delhi) of 2014 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2014 - R.S. SYAL AND I.C. SUDHIR, JJ. For the Appellant : Tarandeep Singh. For the Respondent : Sanjeev Sharma. ORDER:- PER : R.S. Syal By means of the present stay application, the assessee requires the Tribunal to stay demand of ₹ 621,18,79,951/- inclusive of interest for the A.Y. 2009-10 till the disposal of the captioned appeal by the Tribunal. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. This demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion stated on behalf of the assessee. 4. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case specially the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Li Fung India (P.) Ltd. (supra), we find that the assessee has made out a prima-facie case that the TP addition so made is unwarranted. We refrain from discussing in detail the merits of deletion or otherwise of the addition at this juncture. 5. Second component of demand is ₹ 614.47 crores which arose out of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the basis for making this disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is found in the similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2006-07. While placing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disallowance u/s 40(a)(i). The amendment to sec. 40(a)(i), brought to our notice by the ld. DR, became effective from the assessment year 2005-06 and as such was impliedly not absent for consideration from the tribunal at the time of deciding this issue in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] 347 ITR 43 has held that the decisions of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal in favour of the assessee should not be ignored while considering the question of grant of stay. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and the fact that the Tribunal for the assessment year 2006-07 has deleted such disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 40(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
