9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 30.11.2012 declaring total loss at Rs. 92,56,64,304/- under normal provision and book loss of Rs. 2237,95,94,860/- under section 115JB of the Act. The assessee thereafter revised its return on 31.3.2014 vide which it has declared total loss of Rs. 1844,57,69,379/- under normal provision and did not make any change in the book loss declared under section 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) along with questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 27.12.2013. The ld.AO has made reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining arm's length price (ALP) value of international transaction. The AO has passed draft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officers were appraised for grant of stay if an assessee has paid 15% of the outstanding demand disputed before the first appellate authority. This threshold limit of 15% has been revised by letter dtd.31.7.2017. Copies both these letters are placed on page no.22 to 24 of the paper book. On the strength of this circular he contended that this is the first appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee already paid 27% of the tax, and therefore, recovery of the balance be stayed. He further contended that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jagdh Gandabhai Shah Vs. PCIT, 247 Taxman 414 has held that there is no precondition for deposit of 15% of disputed demand in order to seek stay of demand. ii) That the assessee has filed a note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds where the claim for deduction was made by the Appellant by way of notes to computation of income no relief has been granted by the Assessing Officer as well as Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel. In this regard, we would submit before your Honours that the grounds as enumerated below, being claimed by the Appellant by way of Notes, have also been decided by the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the Appellant in the earlier assessment years: Ground No. Ground for disallowance/addition Amount (in Rs.) Remarks 1. Contribution to Ranbaxy Community Healthcare Society and Ranbaxy Science Foundation 2,83,60,000 Covered by the decision of Delhi High court in the case of appellant for AY 1997-98 and also by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at assessee is facing financial hardship and suffering loss. The details of such loss compiled in the note is available in para 1.2 of the page no.36. Alternatively, he contended that if the Tribunal thinks that the ld.Pr.CIT ought to have disposed of the application of the assessee, and wishes to relegate the issue before the PCIT, then the stay be granted during the pendency of such disposal, and 10 days thereafter for enabling the assessee to approach the Tribunal. v) In his alternative contention, he submitted that the assessee is ready to pay further sum of Rs. 50 to Rs. 70 crores in case the stay is being granted to day. 4. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR submitted that on the application of the assessee. Pr.CIT-2, Vadodara has pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never shown its grievance with this finding. For the purpose, he specifically took us clause (c) of the conditions which at the cost of repetition, we reiterate herein: d. Any refund subsequently arising to the assessee or the amalgamating company considering the 'A' has gone through a merger w.e.f 01.04.2014 shall be adjusted against the aforesaid outstanding demand in the case of the assessee. 6. Shri Mahesh Shah, ld.CIT-DR further contended that as far as CBDT circular referred by the ld.counsel for the assessee is concerned, that also empowers the Assessing Officer to put condition while granting stay and adjustment qua refund is one of the conditions which can be put. He further contended that as far as dispute with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se on merit, (b) there should be an irreparable loss going to be caused to the applicants which will not be compensated in terms of money. Other hardships which if weigh in the light of the circumstances, and demonstrate that balance of convenience, equity and fair play would be in favour of the applicant. It is pertinent to observe that a demand raised by the AO is akin to a money decree and money decrees are not to be stayed by the higher appellate authorities because in case money is recovered it can be refunded with interest. It should be stayed only when it is demonstrated that recovery of money would cause such irreparable loss which will not be compensated in terms of money; for example, if recovery of the amount close down business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
