9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar For the Respondents : Mr. J. Narayanaswamy ORDER Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. 2. The petitioner, which is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of broadcasting of Tamil channels through television. 3. In W.P.No.27209 of 2017, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the first respondent dated 27.3.2017, by which, the first respondent, while rejecting the petitioner's prayer for stay of the entire demand as quantified by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, accepted the offer given by the petitioner to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from M/s.Sapphire Media Infrastructure Limited, at whose hands also, they suffered tax and that therefore, once again, the same amount cannot be taxed at the hands of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner received trade advances to the tune of ₹ 129 Crores from three companies and those are towards advertisements and as and when the accrual takes place and invoices are raised, tax is being paid and out of ₹ 129 crores, a sum of ₹ 125 Crores has been shown in the return of income filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that so far as the assessment year 2008-09 is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of ₹ 12,90,960/- and this has not been adjusted by the Department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned order, from which, it is seen that the assessee, in unequivocal terms, agreed that they are prepared to pay ₹ 50 lakhs by 25th of every month till the appeal before the Commissioner is decided. The assessee was confident that the appeal will be decided in their favour and that the tax paid will be refunded to them. These submissions were taken note of by the first respondent and an order to the said effect was passed permitting the petitioner to pay the arrears in monthly instalments of ₹ 50 lakhs till 15% of the demand is collected. The Assessing Officer was directed to withdraw the attachment of the assessee's bank accounts and debtors attachments. However, the petitioner did not keep up their commitment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
