TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y pending Appeal on deposit of 15% of the disputed amount, (which was later on revised to 20% by virtue of the circular in 2017, other conditions remained constant.) The circular also envisaged cases where such requirement can either be increased or decreased depending on facts of the case. Thus requirement of 20% deposit of tax pending the Appeal is not a rigid one and cannot be implemented in all cases, irrespective of relevant facts. Since the Appeal of the Petitioner is pending before the Appellate Commissioner, we would be well advised not to consider the Petitioner’s argument on merit of disallowances threadbare. Suffice to reiterate that the Petitioner has a prima facie case on such disputed issues. The Petitioner had already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted against the recoveries till such Appeal is disposed of by the Appellate Commissioner. Nesarikar 2. Brief facts may be noted at the outset : Petitioner is a private limited company. Originally one K.V. Arochem Private Limited was the wholly owned subsidiary of one S.H. Kelkar and Company. This parent company had another subsidiary company Keva Fragrances Private Limited, under scheme of amalgamation envisaging dated 01/05/2015. Said Keva Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with K.V. Arochem Private Limited. The scheme was sanctioned by the Bombay High Court by an order dated 22/09/2016. K.V. Arochem Pvt. Ltd. was renamed as Keva Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., the Petitioner herein. For the assessment year 201617 the Petitioner fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Pardiwala, appearing for Petitioner, pointed out that the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment relate to 3 separate heads as under; (i) Addition of sum of ₹ 251.18 Crores (rounded of) under section 56 (2)(viib) of the Act. In this context, learned Counsel argued that the transaction in question would not be covered under the said provision. The Assessing Officer committed a serious error in making additions in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner had followed the share valuation method which was also approved by the High Court by confirming scheme for amalgamation. The Assessing Officer cannot insist that the said method was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant considerations while deciding to impose condition for staying recovery pending Petition. 7. Counsel pointed out that the Petitioner had already paid advance tax of ₹ 11 Crores and tax at source ₹ 7,05,288/which the Commissioner in impugned order has totally ignored. Counsel pointed out that the Petitioner has further deposited a sum of ₹ 1 Crore with the Department. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr.Suresh Kumar appearing for the Respondent pointed out that the Assessing Officer has undertaken detailed exercise while passing the order of assessment. He has given reasons for making disallowances and additions. He pointed out that the Assessing Officer has cited reasons to come to the conclusion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Petitioner is pending before the Appellate Commissioner, we would be well advised not to consider the Petitioner s argument on merit of disallowances threadbare. Suffice to reiterate that the Petitioner has a prima facie case on such disputed issues. With this background, we may recall, that the Petitioner had already deposited advance tax of ₹ 11 Crores and TDS of ₹ 7,05,288/by the time of filing of the return. The Petitioner has deposited further sum of ₹ 1 Crore with the tax department. Impugned order passed by the Commissioner does not take into account the sum of ₹ 11,07,05,288/, perhaps due to oversight since it appears that the Petitioner may not have brought such facts to his notice. Be that as it may, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
