TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court is in favour of the assessee. In fact the Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2018 (7) TMI 1905 - SC ORDER ] has held that tax authorities are eligible to grant stay on deposit of amounts lesser than twenty percent of the disputed demand in the facts and circumstances of a case. Till the stay application filed by the petitioner is not decided, no coercive action shall be taken by the Respondents against the Petitioner - W.P.(C) 15850/2022 & C.M.Nos.49302-49303/2022, W.P.(C) 15851/2022 & C.M.Nos.49305-49306/2022, W.P.(C) 15878/2022 & C.M.Nos.49436-49437/2022, W.P.(C) 15879/2022 & C.M.Nos.49438-49439/2022,W.P.(C) 15880/2022 & C.M.Nos.49440-494 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 201/201(1A) of the Act holding that the Petitioner is an assessee in default on account of non-deduction of TDS under Section 194H of the Act with respect to cost of free samples/goods given by the Petitioner under sales promotion scheme to the stockists thereby treating the cost of items of free samples given under sales promotion scheme as brokerage/commission under Section 194H of the Act. He states that a demand of Rs. 17,65,67,319/- is outstanding in the case of the Petitioner for the AY 2013-14 to 2020-21. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner filed appeals against the orders passed under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act and also filed a consolidated application dated 9th September, 2022 for seeking a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents-Revenue. He states that the direction to deposit 20% of the demand is in accordance with the Office Memorandums dated 29th February, 2016 and 31st July, 2017. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the two Office Memorandums, in question, this Court is of the view that the requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending first appeal in all cases. The said pre-condition of deposit of twenty percent of the demand can be relaxed in appropriate cases. Even the Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 gives instances like where addition on the same issue has been delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
