TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of the petitioner - Writ Petition No. 13314 of 2017 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 1-8-2018 - MR. B. VEERAPPA J. Petitioner By: Sri. A. Shankar, Advocate Respondents By: Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate ORDER The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 not to recover the disputed taxes mentioned in the order passed under Section 154 of the Act dated 08.03.2017 vide Annexure-D for the assessment year 2013-14 till disposal of the application pending before the competent authorities under Mutual Agreement Procedure; to direct the respondent No.1 not to recover the disputed taxes mentioned in the order passed under Section 154 of the Act dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner at ₹ 773,67,98,371/- and total tax payable as per the assessment order at ₹ 239,64,00,210/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The petitioner also filed an application for stay before the appellate authority and the same was rejected by order dated 24.03.2017 and the other application filed before the 2nd respondent/Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is pending. The petitioner having apprehension that the respondent may take coercive steps to recover the disputed demand and tax, has filed the present writ petition before this Court for the relief sought for. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout going into the nature of the transaction, ultimately held that if the deductions under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not allowed, the same would been to be added to the profits of the undertakting on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under Section 10A of the Act and therefore, he sought to allow the petition. 6. Per contra Sri. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned action and contended that the petitioner has filed an application for stay during pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CBDT has issued instruction No.1914, dated 02.02.1993, Office Memorandum dated 29.02.2016. The first respondent disposed of the application by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and till then the interim order granted by this Court shall continue and enure to the benefit of petitioner. The said submission is place on record. 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner Income Tax by an order dated 06.02.2017 the exercising powers under Section 143(3) read with Section 144(c) of the Act has determined the total income of the petitioner at ₹ 773,67,98,371/- and total tax payable by the petitioner was at ₹ 239,64,00,210/-. Subsequently the amount was modified and the tax payable by the petitioner was ₹ 1,72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
