9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material was placed before the Tribunal in support of such contention. In such circumstances, we find no error in the discretionary order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has not made out a case for interference. - Decided against assessee. - C.M.A. Nos. 392 & 393 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2014 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. ORDER These a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 7-4-2011 and ₹ 100/- for every day or at 1% of the tax determined per month, whichever is higher with effect from 8-4-2011 under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. On a perusal of the application filed for stay/waiver of pre-deposit, we are surprised to find that the application runs to about 85 pages and we find that the appellant has verbatim extracted the grounds of appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that it has been consistently held that where UDS is sold first and then construction is done for the land owners, there is a service involved, then there is no sale of constructed flats; construction done after sale of UDS cannot be considered as a business of sale of flats, but only as a business of providing service to the person, to whom UDS was sold. The Tribunal also factually distinguis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied with, it would amount to more than 50% of the demand and the assessee is suffering from severe financial hardship and prays for interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. We have heard Mr. V. Sundareeswaran, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue on the above submissions. 6. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that of financial hardshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
