Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (3) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by individuals and families, which has remained unspecified. Moreover, the unsubstantiated claim about the fulfillment of conditions pertaining to commercial activity also does not prove that the same is in accordance with para 4(2A) of the Scheme. In fact, the inconsistencies in data and manipulation of information does not lead to evidences on the basis of which the application deserves approval.Despite giving many opportunities and substantial time for compliance, satisfactory explanation has not been filed. It has thus not been found to be a fit case for notification u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Hence, the competent authority has decided to reject the application. - Decided against assessee. Stay application - Held that:- We are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... als). 2. The petitioner on 22.2.2011 applied to the CBDT for approval of its Industrial Park - Techniplex - II (project) under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12. However, the CBDT did not dispose of the petitioner's application and in the meantime the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order dated 28.3.2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 without extending benefit under Section 80IA(4) of the Act to the petitioner in respect of its project. In the above circumstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.2597 of 2014 in this Court seeking early disposal of its application dated 22.2.2011 by the CBDT. This Court by order dated 10.11.2014 directed the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sence of it being perverse and/or arbitrary, not a subject matter of determination in writ jurisdiction. 5. At this point of time, Mr.Jhaveri emphasised that in the present facts there is a flaw in the decision making process as its application was rejected without grant of personal hearing. We found no such request of personal hearing in the letter dated 1.7.2014. We find that in the letter dated 1.7.2014, there is no request made for grant of personal hearing though in an earlier letter such an application was made. In fact in the letter dated 1.7.2014 a request was made to CBDT to dispose of the matter at the earliest as it is pending for some time. Moreover the petitioners have not been able to show any prejudice to it in the absence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atisfied by him. Similarly, the second condition which the impugned order finds not satisfied is with regard to allocation of area for commercial activities. The impugned order records a finding of fact that even if the remeasured figure given by the petitioner is considered, the area allocated to the commercial activities is much more than 10%. The petitioner had claimed certain premises were carrying out information technology activities while the impugned order does record on facts that the actual activities carried out at the premises (some of them) were other than Information Technology activities. The impugned order records its conclusions as under:- 17. Thus, it is noticed that the data furnished by the applicant, being inconsist .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m order passed earlier stands vacated. 8. At this stage Mr.Jhaveri, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks four weeks stay of this order. We are not inclined to stay this order for the reason that the assessment order for Assessment Year 2011-12 has already been passed on 28.3.2014 and the amounts due thereunder have not been paid only because of its application for benefit of Section 80IB(4) was pending before the CBDT. We did indicate to Mr.Jhaveri that in case the petitioner deposit the entire amount of demand attributable to the claim under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, we would be inclined to grant stay. This was unacceptable to the petitioner. At this stage Mr.Jhaveri states that the petitioner is ready to offer security. We are no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates