TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat being so, he cannot now contend that the order passed in the stay petition is wrong. Moreover, though the petitioner has disputed the liability, the demand of ₹ 4,25,40,690/- is payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Admittedly, six months have been lapsed. Further, the accounting year would also come to an end on 31.3.2015. In such circumstances, not inclined to interfere with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition to quash the impugned order dated 25.8.2014 passed by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner company is doing business in Civil Engineering Construction. The petitioner has filed his return for the Assessment year 2011-2012. The respondent passed the assessment order dated 08.3.2014 raising a demand of ₹ 4,25,40,690/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the petitioner prefe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before this Court. 3. I have heard the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 4. It is not in dispute that at the time of rejecting the stay petition by the first respondent, the petitioner has made a statement before the authority that he is willing to pay the entire arrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.3.2015. With regard to the disputed amount of tax including TDS is concerned, the same is payable by the petitioner subject to the outcome of appeal/rectification. 6. Since the appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore, the authority is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
