TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25-1-2010 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in stay application Nos. 93 to 100/ Delhi/2009 relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The entire controversy is with regard to the amount of deposit directed by the said Tribunal. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner arguments on the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.59 crores and, therefore, if this order were to be taken into account, the two equal instalments would be approximately ₹ 4.8 crores each. 3. He submits that in order to have this corrected, the petitioner, has filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the said Act') for rectification of the purported mistake which, according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ructions from Mr. R.K. Raina, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal had directed the deposit of 20 per cent of the demand and not the deposit of ₹ 5 crores in two equal instalments of ₹ 2.5 crores each. 5. This, however, is a controversy which would be resolved by the Tribunal in deciding the rectification application, which has been filed by the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
