9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner has learnt for the first time that the remand report has been called for by the CIT (A) by virtue of the affidavit dated 16 December 2014 filed by the AO in reply to the present petition – thus, it would only be fair that the balance demand of ₹ 320.45 crores is stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the CIT (A) – Stay granted. Also in UTI Mutual Fund vs. ITO [2012 (3) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it has been held that the orders passed by the Authorities under the Act would not be enforced till such time as the period to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority expires and where stay applications have been filed, the Revenue would not adopt coercive proceedings till the disposal of the stay application b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filed an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ). By an order dated 18 July 2014 the Tribunal stayed the demand of ₹ 267.26 crores after taking into account the amount of ₹ 30 crores already paid by the Petitioners. The appeal is still awaiting disposal by the Tribunal. (b) Simultaneously the Assessment Order dated 5 February 2011 was also subject to the revision under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax. By an order dated 30 March 2012, the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to examine the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of shareholders who had subscribed to the rights shares of the Petitioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order dated 28 March 2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act was completed on 25 June 2014. (f) In the meantime, on 5 November 2014 itself the Assessing Officer issued a communication to the Petitioner seeking to set off the refund of ₹ 204.65 crores due to them for the A. Y. 201314 from the outstanding demand of ₹ 525.09 crores for the A. Y. 200607. (g) It was on the above facts, that this petition was filed to restrain the Assessing Officer from recovering the amount of ₹ 525.09 crores till the disposal of its appeal by the CIT (Appeals) and also seeking to restrain the Assessing Officer from acting upon the letter dated 5 November 2014. 4] When the petition reached hearing, the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e chargeability to income tax of share capital received from a non-resident is already covered in its favour by the decision in Vodafone Ltd. vs. Union of India 368 ITR 1 where this Court has taken a view that issue of share capital is not chargeable to tax as income. However, the issue here is with regard to the genuineness and credit worthiness of the subscribers to the shares issued by the Petitioner, on application of Section 68 of the Act. This is a matter which would require consideration in some depth by the CIT (Appeals). Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has already paid approximately 40% of the total amount of the dues for A. Y. 2006-07 and the Petitioner has acted in right earnest in having the appeal disposed of and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
