9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G.P. For the Respondent No. 1, UOI: Adv. Ashutosh Mishra. P. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and heard finally. 3. The Petitioner challenges the Order-in-Original dated 26th August 2024. Though an appeal lies against this order, considering the order already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transactions (tax demand -Rs. 18,91,89,054); and (ii) tax liability on Employee stock option plan (tax demand -Rs. 87,91,435); which constitutes a majority of the demand. The Petitioner has also sought liberty of this Court to challenge the other remaining issues in case the need arises. 5. Mr. Shroff submits that insofar as the demand for the export transaction is concerned, the issue stands c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the taxpayer had not submitted any supporting documents which would reflect that there is no additional consideration paid to the foreign entity. Further, these services pertain to the State of Haryana and not the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner also contends that in case any specific documents were required, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to have put the Petitioner to notice wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyee Stock Option Plan issue, we find it appropriate to set aside the Impugned Order, and remand the case for a de-novo consideration. 9. Suffice to state that the Petitioner should have an opportunity to place the Circular dated 10th September 2024, and the subsequent period order which drops the demand on the very same issue, amongst other submissions, before the 2nd Respondent and persuade him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
