9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 3397 Records Search Text: 295 itr 22 |
| Search Results |
| Acts / Rules (1) Articles (4) Case-Laws (3375) Circulars (6) News (3) Notifications (8) |
|
2007 (7) TMI 5 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The Court held that the Tribunal retains the power to continue interim relief beyond the specified period in the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, provided the delay is not due to the assessee. The Tribunal's interpretation denying this power was deemed erroneous, and the Court set aside the order, directing the interim relief to continue for an additional four months with instructions for timely appeal disposal. The petition was allowed without costs.
2010 (11) TMI 461 - Bombay High Court The High Court Bombay upheld the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to grant a stay of outstanding demand beyond 365 days, citing a previous court ruling. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
2016 (3) TMI 1471 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The HC of Bombay dismissed the Revenue's petitions challenging the Tribunal's orders that extended the stay on recovery of disputed demand beyond 365 days under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court ruled that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to extend such stays, citing established legal precedents. The challenge was deemed academic due to the expiration of the impugned orders, affirming the Tribunal's authority to extend stays beyond the statutory period.
2015 (5) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT The court declared the amendment to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 2008, as unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This decision reverted the interpretation back to allowing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to extend stay beyond 365 days if the delay is not the fault of the assessee. The petitioners were directed to seek extension of stay from the Tribunal, and interim orders were to remain in effect until the Tribunal's decision.
2014 (7) TMI 829 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The applications seeking an extension of the stay granted on 28.2.2013, due to delayed disposal of appeals under the Central Excise Act, were dismissed by the High Court. The court emphasized the legislative limits on extending stays beyond 365 days as per Section 35C(2A) of the Act, aligning with established legal principles. Despite references to Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments supporting the extension, the court relied on its own rulings and statutory provisions to vacate the stay as it exceeded the permissible 365-day period.
2024 (7) TMI 434 - ITAT RANCHI The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for an extension of the stay of demand amounting to Rs. 7,34,33,297/- for 180 days or until the appeal's disposal, whichever is earlier. The Tribunal noted the assessee's bonafide conduct and the delay in the rectification application's disposal by the DRP. It instructed the DRP to resolve the application within two months, emphasizing the necessity of timely proceedings. The decision underscored the Tribunal's power to extend the stay beyond 365 days due to recent legal developments, provided the delay was not attributable to the assessee.
2014 (7) TMI 747 - CESTAT NEW DELHI The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi referred the issue of extending stay beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act to a Larger Bench for consideration. The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for reconsideration due to differences in language between the Income Tax Act and the Central Excise Act, indicating the possibility of granting extensions beyond 365 days, particularly when delays were not attributable to the appellant. The Tribunal directed the respondents not to take coercive recovery steps pending the Larger Bench's decision, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of legal provisions and precedents in this matter.
2017 (1) TMI 881 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to extend the stay beyond 365 days in the Income Tax Act case, emphasizing that delays not caused by the assessee could warrant such extensions. It deemed the provision mandating stay vacation after 365 days as discriminatory and in violation of the assessee's rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court dismissed the appeal, stressing the importance of timely appeals disposal and considering reasons for delays.
2016 (5) TMI 396 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to extend the stay beyond 365 days in a case concerning the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized the need for a fair approach towards assessees and highlighted that extensions can be granted when delays are not caused by the assessee. Relying on legal precedents and statutory interpretation, the Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's order in favor of the assessee as no substantial question of law arose from the case.
2015 (12) TMI 1507 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The High Court upheld the Tribunal's authority to extend the stay of demand in income tax appeals beyond the 365-day limit set by Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite the introduction of a substituted third proviso post previous decisions, the Court emphasized the Tribunal's power to grant interim relief for effective adjudication, aligning with Supreme Court precedents. The Court highlighted the necessity of coextensive powers for interim and final relief, dismissing petitions challenging the Tribunal's extension of stay. The judgment reaffirmed settled legal principles and precedents in allowing the Tribunal to grant interim relief in income tax appeals.
2013 (1) TMI 516 - ITAT AHMADABAD The Tribunal granted the appellant's stay petitions for Assessment Years 08-09 & 09-10, allowing an extension beyond 365 days. The decision was based on legal precedents and the appellant's compliance with payment of outstanding demands. The stay was granted for 180 days or until the appeal's disposal, subject to specific conditions, including payment of a percentage of the demand for A.Y. 09-10 by a specified date and an obligation to petition for early hearing if the Supreme Court decides the case within the stay period.
2009 (4) TMI 242 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The Court granted relief to the petitioner by waiving pre-deposit of penalty and staying recovery until appeal disposal. The Court emphasized the Tribunal's duty to dispose of appeals within a specified time frame, citing section 129B(2A) and previous judgments. The Tribunal's failure to adhere to the time frame led to the stay order being vacated. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal process within four months, ensuring the appellant's right to a fair hearing without undue delays.
2020 (7) TMI 624 - ITAT BANGALORE The Tribunal extended the stay for 180 days or until the appeal's disposal, noting the delay was not the assessee's fault. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision, the Tribunal upheld the constitutional validity of extending the stay beyond 365 days. Financial hardship alone was deemed insufficient to deny the stay, as per the Bombay High Court's ruling.
2020 (6) TMI 472 - ITAT MUMBAI The Tribunal granted an interim stay on the recovery of tax and interest amounts for the public charitable trust, subject to conditions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the CBDT approval under Section 11(1)(c) and deliberated on the impact of the amendment to Section 254(2A) by the Finance Act, 2020. The Tribunal highlighted the need for flexibility in determining reasonable security and referred the matter to the Hon'ble President of ITAT for constituting a larger bench to address significant legal questions. The case was tentatively scheduled for a hearing on 6th July 2020, with the interim stay remaining in place until further orders.
2019 (3) TMI 1319 - ITAT MUMBAI The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's Miscellaneous Application, affirming its power to extend stay beyond 365 days if delay is not attributable to the assessee. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal rejected the restrictive interpretation of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. It clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. does not apply to revenue matters. The order was issued on 15th March 2019.
2015 (8) TMI 696 - DELHI HIGH COURT (FB) The court held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has the authority to extend stay orders beyond 365 days under Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act if the delay is not caused by the assessee. The decision in Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. regarding the Income Tax Act does not apply to the Central Excise Act due to differing provisions. The court overruled the previous decision in Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. and scheduled the appeal for further review, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent indefinite extensions of stay orders for timely appeal disposal.
2012 (7) TMI 562 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT The court held that the Tribunal's extension of stay beyond 365 days was unlawful under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. It emphasized that stay orders must not exceed 365 days, regardless of the reason for delay. The court rejected arguments allowing extensions, citing legislative intent. Precedents were reviewed, with the court differing from prior decisions. The Tribunal's error led to the appeals being allowed in favor of the appellant-Revenue. The main decision's validity was unaffected, subject to other remedies, with no costs ordered.
2016 (1) TMI 1101 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT The High Court held that the Tribunal can extend interim orders beyond 365 days under Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if the delay is not attributable to the assessee. The Court considered legislative history, statutory provisions, and judicial interpretations, supporting the Tribunal's power to extend stays. The appeals were dismissed, and the Tribunal was instructed to promptly decide the pending appeals within six months.
2014 (10) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) The Tribunal held that despite the 365-day limit from the initial grant of stay under the third proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, extensions could be granted if the delay in appeal disposal was not the appellant's fault. It followed the Gujarat High Court's interpretation, allowing extensions under specific circumstances. The Tribunal also noted the prospective nature of amendments by the Finance Act, 2014, and declined to address the third proviso's applicability to pre-2013 causes of action. It directed the Registry to prioritize appeals with stay orders and listed pending matters for disposal based on merit.
2011 (3) TMI 688 - ITAT MUMBAI The Tribunal held that it can extend stay beyond 365 days post-2008 amendment if delay isn't due to assessee, following Ronak Industries Ltd. precedent. Stay applications were dismissed as demand was already recovered by Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also refused to order refund of recovered amount, as it was done by adjusting refunds, not coercive action. The Special Bench was deemed authorized to dispose of stay applications despite objections.
|
