9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 196 - HC - Income TaxStay - Petition is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, whereby the petitioner s application seeking stay of demand for the assessment year 2010-11 has been disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit 50% out of the balance demand of Rs. 22 crores, after giving adjustments for refunds due and the tax in relation to covered issues. - Held that - the matter should be remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax for considering the question of stay after examining the decision in Nokia Corporation v. DIT (International Taxation) 2007 (5) TMI 202 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2011 (11) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT - However, till the Commissioner of Income Tax does not decide the application, no coercive measure be taken by the respondent to recover the amount in question.
Issues:
1. Stay of demand order for assessment year 2010-11 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. Adjustment of refunds and tax in relation to covered issues. 3. Consideration of holistic view by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 4. Application of decisions in Nokia Corporation v. DIT and Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. Remittance of the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax for reconsideration of the stay application. Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the stay of demand for the assessment year 2010-11. The petitioner sought a stay on the demand of Rs. 37.21 crores, which was raised by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the balance demand of Rs. 22 crores after adjustments for refunds due and tax on covered issues. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner should have considered the tax demands and refunds adjustments for other assessment years as well. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax granted adjustments to the petitioner totaling Rs. 15.14 crores, considering refunds due and tax on covered issues. The Commissioner directed the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 22.07 crores by a specified date, staying the balance for a certain period. The petitioner argued for a holistic view, citing previous court decisions emphasizing a broader perspective in tax liability assessments. 3. Referring to the decisions in Nokia Corporation v. DIT and Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the petitioner highlighted the importance of considering the overall tax liability of the petitioner across multiple assessment years. The court acknowledged the relevance of these decisions and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax for a fresh review of the stay application. 4. The court emphasized that the Commissioner should reevaluate the application in light of the principles outlined in the mentioned judgments. The court set aside the previous order and instructed the Commissioner to decide on the application within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the court directed that no coercive measures be taken for recovering the disputed amount until the Commissioner's decision is made. 5. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, ordering a reconsideration of the stay application by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, emphasizing the need for a thorough review based on the principles established in relevant legal precedents.
|
