9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t maintained separate accounts and therefore it is not possible to segregate benefits of exemption notification on investments of the petitioner pre and past 31-7-2005, such exemption benefits in the present case have been denied in entirety - Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the pre-deposit requirement to Rs. 25 Lacs - petition is disposed of - 216 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner that notification dated 31-7-2001 nowhere disqualifies such investments. 2.1 The stand of the revenue is that by virtue of the said notification any investment made after 31-12-2005 would not qualify for exemption. The Assessing Officer having ruled against the petitioner, petitioner carried the issue in appeal. Such appeal is pending before Commissioner (Appeals). He insisted f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the financial condition of the company is also weak, requirement of such pre-deposit would cause undue hardship. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the revenue opposing the petition contended that Circular dated 31-7-2001 is clear. That the Tribunal has not relied on the Notification No. 16/2008. No further reduction in pre-deposit requirement is called for. 5. Having hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption benefits in the present case have been denied in entirety. We, therefore, find that though the Tribunal has already considered question of financial hardship of the petitioner, from the record it emerges that petitioner has been making loss since long couple of years. It has cash on hand of Rs. 22 Lacs. 6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
