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

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1) , BENGALURU AND ANOTHERS

2018 (2) TMI 880 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Tribunal exercise of itís power u/s 254(2A) - whether tribunal could not have directed the petitioner to make additional payments to furnish bank guarantees or to maintain balance in the bank account - Held that:- The Honíble Single Judge has recorded a finding that the Tribunal, while passing orders under Section 254 (2A) has followed this Courtís order [2017 (11) TMI 1609 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein, petitioner was directed to retain 20% of the tax demand in the bank. Keeping in view the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with orders made for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. - So far as the assessment year 2012-13 is concerned, the Honíble Single Judge has modified Tribunalís order by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to 45% of the tax demand - An order under Section 254 (2A) is a discretionary order. Therefore, in our considered view, both Tribunalís order as well as Honíble Single Judgeís order cannot be classified as those which any reasonable person cannot pass. 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

by the appellant-petitioner challenging order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Hon ble Single Judge in W.P.No.55578/2017 c/w. W.P.No.55579/2017, W.P.No.55580/2017 and W.P.No.55606/2017. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petitions. 3. Heard Shri Deepak Chopra, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri K.V.Aravind, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Before the Hon ble Single Judge, petitioner challenged a common order dated 08.12.20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ore the Tribunal. 5. The Hon ble Single Judge, on consideration of the material on record, partially modified Tribunal s order and directed the petitioner: • to furnish a bank guarantee for 25% of the tax demand in respect of assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11; • to pay 20% of tax demand in respect of assessment year 2011-12 and to furnish bank guarantee to cover 25% of the tax demand; and • to furnish a bank guarantee for 45% of the tax demand in respect of assessment year 2012 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tribunal, while granting interim protection at the first instance, did consider the matters in entirety and granted stay orders with proper application of mind. Therefore, the Tribunal as also the Hon ble Single Judge erred in law by imposing additional conditions. 9. Section 254 (2A) reads as follows:- (2A) In every appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such appeal is not so disposed of within the said period of stay as specified in the order of stay, the Appellate Tribunal may, on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, extend the period of stay, or pass an order of stay for a further period or periods as it thinks fit; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally allowed and the period or periods so extended or allowed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or periods, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. 10. The tax demand and the amounts paid by the assessee-petitioner for different years have been tabulated in the impugned order as under:- Asst. Year Total demand Rs. Amount paid Rs. 2009-10 101,47,23,190 50,00,00,000 2010-11 159,27,89,430 80,00,00,000 2011-12 163,39,74,680 49,01,92,404 2012-13 486,46,79,020 145,94,03,706 Total 910,61,66,320 324,95,96,110 11. Admittedly, the appeals before the Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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