9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the determination of the amount payable by them made in terms of Ext.P2 order is incorrect - Held that: - In so far as the correctness of Ext.P5 order is the subject matter of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same, it may not be appropriate for this Court to go into the merits of the matter. But, on the materials on record, it appears prima facie to this Court that the computati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing authority on the ground that certain mistakes had occurred while computing the tax liability of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the assessing authority in this connection. In terms of the said order, the tax payable by the petitioner for the relevant year was determined as ₹ 12,34,830/- and the petitioner was directed to pay the deficit viz, ₹ 5,46,378/-. The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is connection. In terms of Ext.P5 order, the assessing authority has refixed the tax payable by the petitioner for the relevant year at ₹ 1,71,83,340/- and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit amount namely, ₹ 1,64,94,888/- with interest at 53% amounting to ₹ 87,42,291/-. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order in appeal. In the appeal, the petitioner preferred an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the petitioner is that the determination of the amount payable by them made in terms of Ext.P2 order is incorrect. It is on account of the said reason that the petitioner took up the matter in appeal, and later in second appeal. It is in the place of ₹ 5,46,378/- which the petitioner challenged, they are mulcted with the liability of almost ₹ 2.6 crores. In so far as the correctne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
