Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

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

2015 (10) TMI 2185 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

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.

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. They have accepted all the disallowances. Now, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellant : Mr. R. Venkatararaman, SC for Mr. K. Harishankar For the Respondents : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda JUDGMENT Judgment was delivered by V. Ramasubramanian, J This appeal arises out of the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant herein seeking a Mandamus to direct the Original and Appellate Authorities of the Department of Income Tax to stay the disputed outstanding demand of ₹ 10 crores pursuant to an order dated 28.1.2015 passed under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the disallowances and did not file any appeal. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated and a demand of ₹ 10 crores was made. The assessee moved an application for stay after filing the appeal. In the application under Section 220(6), the Assessing Officer passed a conditional order directing the appellant to pay ₹ 1 Crore on or before 10.2.2015; ₹ 2 Crores on or before 28.2.2015 and ₹ 2 Crores on or before 20.3.2015. The appellant complied w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

15. After pointing out that the appellant failed to challenge the conditional order by filing a statutory appeal and after pointing out that the discretion vested in the Assessing Officer was properly exercised in terms of Section 220(6), the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 23.2.2015. It is against the said order that the above appeal is filed. 5. Mr.R.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though a statutory appeal has been fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version