Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (1) TMI 255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Rejection of stay petition - Held that:- The petitioner is directed to pay 30% of the demand made by the authority concerned.

Since the bank accounts of the petitioner are attached, the authority concerned is permitted to realise 30% of the demand and directed to raise the attachment forthwith made on the bank accounts of the petitioner.

The second respondent Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

R By consent, both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions, challenging the order of rejection of stay petition filed by the petitioner by the third respondent and consequential attachment made by the first respondent, attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner lying with the fourth respondent bank. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business of re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

14 for the year in question, disallowing the loss and depreciation claimed by the petitioner and accordingly assessed the total income and tax payable thereon. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was entertained, but no stay order was granted by the second respondent. Since the first respondent refused to grant stay, the petitioner moved an application for stay of collection of demand before the third respondent, who by order dated 19.11.2015 rejected the same a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itted that the consequential attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner resulted in paralyzing the entire business activities of the petitioner, due to which, irreparable loss and prejudice caused to the petitioner. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that though the third respondent passed the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's application seeking stay of collection of demand and directing the first respondent to effect the demand m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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