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 →

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus Jindal Steel and Power Limited, Hissar

2016 (5) TMI 1232 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Stay of demand extended beyond 365 days - Held that:- The matter is no longer res integra. While interpreting the provisions of Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is pari materia to section 254(2A) of the I.T. Act, this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vs. M/s Voice Telesystem (2016 (1) TMI 1101 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ) after considering the relevant case law on the point concluded that wherever the appeal could not be decided by the Tribunal due to press .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as the combined period of stay has exceeded 365 days - Decided against revenue - ITA No.57 of 2016 (O&M) - Dated:- 9-5-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 8.6.2015, Annexure A.III passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (Friday) (in sho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of a period of 365 days even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee furnished its return of income for the assessment year 2008-08 declaring income of ₹ 766,99,04,200/- on 29.9.2008. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 29.3.2010 wherein income of ₹ 766,72,79,900/- was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 28,21,94,177/- vide order dated 28.11.2013, Annexure A.I for the assessment year 2008-09. Against the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 13.3.2014, Annexure A.II, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee had deposited demand of ₹ 14,11,77,088/- on 29.3.2014 and the balance demand outstanding was of ₹ 14,10,17,089/-. Against the order passed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assess .....

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