2018 (6) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2018 - -
Income Tax
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Shekhar Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate for The Petitioner Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate for The Respondent ORDER Notice. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Revenue. The petitioner seeks stay of recovery of demands by coercive steps, pursuant to Assessment Order dated 14.12.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they had P.E. in India. It is stated that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Japan, for the AY 2005-2006, had held that they do not have a P.E. in India. Further, in the present case, high sea sales were made and, therefore, the finding that Mitsui & Co. Ltd., Japan had a P.E. in India is incorrect and contrary to law. In the case of the petitioner, the AO has inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an amount of Rs. 15,00,00,000/- in the three AYs. Subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 5,00,00,000/- within seven days, there would be stay of recovery of impugned demand by coercive steps till the next date of hearing. Counter-affidavit would be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks, after counter-affidavit is served. The pendency of the present writ petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X