9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on real estate business. The petitioner firm is assessed on the file of the first respondent herein, under PAN No.AAZFS1507K. For the assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner firm had filed its return of income, on 30.9.2009, admitting a total income of Rs.1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 2010-2011, accounting for 96% of the work. The appropriate tax had also been paid. However, the first respondent had held that, since the petitioner had incurred costs to the extent of 91% of the contract, it ought to have considered 91% as the extent of completion of construction and not as 84%. Hence, the first respondent made an addition of 7% of the total sales amounting to Rs.4,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the application made by the petitioner, by his order, dated 20.2.2012. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, a stay petition had been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the second respondent herein, on 29.2.2012. However, the second respondent, without appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, had rejected the application, by an order, dated 5.3.2012. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order, dated 29.12.2011, relating to the assessment year 2009-2010. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant an order of interim stay of the demand of income tax, made against the petitioner, by way of the assessment order, dated 29.12.2011, relating to the assessment year 2009-2010, it may do so on cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
