Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. S-10 Health Care Solutions Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer, The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, The Commissioner of Income Tax, The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank

2017 (9) TMI 826 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Attachment of the petitioner's bank account - stay of demand - seeking directions u/s 144A from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax - Held that:- while granting an order of interim stay, the Court or the Appropriate Authority is entitled to take note of the factual and legal submissions made and examine as to whether a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant/assessee for grant of interim order. - Taking note of the fact that hearing of the appeal has already commenced, ther .....

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 petitioner for complying with the above conditional order. The petitioner is directed to effect payment of the amount within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner fails to pay the said amount within the time stipulated, it is open to the first respondent to proceed further in accordance with law. As it has already been stated that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has commenced hearing of the appeal petition, the appeal petition shall .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging an order passed by the first respondent - the petitioner's Assessing officer on a petition filed by the petitioner for stay of demand of the arrears of income tax for the assessment year 2014-15. 3. The assessment for the said year was completed by order dated 26.12.2016 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the petitioner was assessed to tax for a total income of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which is prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 3.3 of the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 wherein it has been stated that a reference under Section 144A of the said Act was solicited to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Range-6, Chennai seeking directions/guidelines on the issue of share premium received by the company and that the Additional Commissioner issued directions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tay before the Assessing Officer. 6. A copy of the stay petition along with written submissions were placed in the typed set of papers, from which, it is seen that the petitioner made elaborate submissions on factual and legal issues and also enclosed certain decisions, which they seek to rely upon. The first respondent, by the impugned order, stated that the petitioner did not make 20% payment as per circular No.1914 dated 31.7.2017 to consider their case for the grant of stay of balance demand .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n'ble Supreme Court is incorrect. The first respondent ought to have seen what was the ratio decidendi in the judgment and the first respondent is not justified in brushing aside the judgment stating that there were in writ proceedings. The observations made go contrary to the settled law of precedents and as to how a judgment should be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Be that as it may, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioner can be granted any indu .....

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 Section 144A of the said Act, which is prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. 10. Though the first respondent has referred to a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in my opinion, while granting an order of interim stay, the Court or the Appropriate Authority is entitled to take note of the factual and legal submissions made and examine as to whether a prima facie case has been made out by the appellant/assessee for grant of interim order. I find in the impugned proceedings .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version