TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r grant of stay is made out or not. Similarly, the Court has to consider whether on the basis of the pleadings and the material placed before it, undue hardship is likely to be caused to the assessee in case the stay is declined or when a conditional stay is granted, the conditions imposed are so burdensome that the assessee is unable to comply with the same and, thus, rendering the right of appeal non-existent. Needless to point out that the power of stay by the Court is not likely to be exercised in a routine manner or as a matter of course in view of the special nature of taxation and revenue laws. It will only be when a strong prima facie case is made out that the court will consider whether to stay the recovery proceedings and on what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , direction has been sought to CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of confectionary products from its factories situated at Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Uttarakhand. For the assessment year 2008-09 i.e. the financial year 2007-08, the petitioner filed its return of income on 29.9.2008 declaring income of ₹ 13,00,68,080/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued by the first respondent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed appeal before the Tribunal being ITA No.5897/Del/2012. It also filed an application for staying the outstanding demand of ₹ 64,53,77,009/-. In the meantime, same issue regarding transfer pricing adjustment in relation to advertisement, marketing and sales promotion came before the Tribunal in the case of M/s L.G.Electronics India Pvt. Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The President of the Tribunal constituted Special Bench referring two legal questions for adjudication. However, in the meantime, the Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2012 decided the stay application and stayed 50% of the outstanding demand upto six months or disposal of appeal whichever was earlier subject to the payment of balance 50% of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;Bright Line Test' as a method to compute the adjustment related to AMP. Respondent No.1 passed revised final assessment order dated 30.3.2015, Annexure P.4 creating a demand of ₹ 29,79,66,020/- but did not refer the matter to the TPO. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 failed to give effect to the demand already paid in protest amounting to ₹ 32,66,88,505/-. The petitioner filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The petitioner also filed civil miscellaneous application before this court seeking stay against coercive steps by respondent No.1 against the demand raised in pursuance to the notice dated 31.3.2015. This court while disposing of the application vide order dated 27.4.2015, Annexur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.1.2016. Hence the instant writ petition. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents in court today, it has been inter alia stated that respondent No.2 passed a detailed and reasoned order and allowed the petitioner to pay outstanding income tax in four installments starting from 15.10.2015 to 15.1.2016. There was no reason to stay the recovery of the remaining outstanding amount. The TPO passed an order under section 92CA of the Act proposing an adjustment of ₹ 117,99,66,691/- on account of excess advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the petitioner for promoting the branch of its associated enterprise. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case of deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interim relief. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 8.5.2015 for stay of demand of ₹ 29,79,66,020/-. The petitioner also filed an application under section 154 of the Act for rectification and vide order dated 18.8.2015, the Assessing Officer modified the amount payable to ₹ 13,96,37,398/-. After considering the matter, the petitioner was asked to pay the said demand either at once or in the three equal installments of ₹ 3,50,00,000/- within the period starting from 15.10.2015 to 15.12.2015 and the balance outstanding demand to be paid on 15.1.2016. The order passed by the CIT(A) appears to be just and reasonable. The petitioner was given sufficient time to pay the outstanding demand. 6. It is true tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
