9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and against such income the business loss carried forward has also not been allowed to be set-off - the balance outstanding demand deserves to be stayed – Say granted. - SA No.47/PN/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.536/PN/2014) - - - Dated:- 10-7-2014 - Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav And Shri G. S. Pannu,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kalra For the Respondent : Mrs. M. S. Verma ORDER Per G. S. Pannu, AM. The captioned application has been preferred by the assessee seeking stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of ₹ 7,19,43,460/- which has arisen as a result of an assessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 26.03.2013 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s loss carried forward (38,40,40,796) Loss carried forward not allowed on addition made u/s 68 13,65,21,956 Total Income determined by AO (rounded off) 13,65,21,956 3. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that all the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and, which have been affirmed by the DRP, are unjustified and assessee has a good prima-facie case to succeed in the Tribunal. Referring to the addition of ₹ 13,65,21,956/- made by invoking section 68 of the Act, it was submitted that the same was clearly untenable because the impugned amounts do not fall within the purview of section 68 at all. It was pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought forward business loss is quite unjustified, considering the following judgements : (i) Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chensing Ventures, (2007) 291 ITR 258 (Madras); and, (ii) Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Margret s Hope Tea Co. Ltd., (1993) 201 ITR 747 (Calcutta). Apart therefrom, it has also been pointed out that the other additions made on account of transfer pricing adjustment and disallowance of legal professional fees are also not justified and assessee has a good prima-facie case to succeed. 4. Elaborating further, the learned counsel pointed out that prima-facie assessee had a good case before the Tribunal; that the balance of convenience is in favour of the assessee and it is submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , assessee returned a loss in its return of income whereas the assessment has been made at a positive figure of ₹ 13,65,21,956/-, which represents addition made u/s 68 of the Act and against such income the business loss carried forward of ₹ 38,40,40,796/- has also not been allowed to be set-off. 7. Considering the entirety of the circumstances, in our view, the balance outstanding demand of ₹ 7,19,43,460/- deserves to be stayed. Accordingly, we direct the Revenue not to adopt any coercive measures to recover the outstanding demand till the disposal of appeal pending with the Tribunal or six months from the date of this order, whichever is earlier. 8. Registry is directed to post the appeal of the assessee vide ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
