9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue by: Shri Satishkumar Gupta ORDER G.D. Agarwal, By this stay petition, the assessee has requested for stay of demand of ₹ 83,69,9094/- and ₹ 2,41,93,478/- for A.Y.2008-2009 and 2009-2010 respectively. 2. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that originally the stay was granted by the ITAT vide Stay Petition No.15 and 16/Ahd/2011 order dated 25- 3-2011 on the part pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be stayed. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, stated that the assessee is a cash-rich company and therefore they should pay whatever is outstanding demand against them. There is no justification for grant of any stay to this assessee. 4. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The factual position of the demand raised and tax pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 Less Amount paid on 31 March 2010 (25,000,000) Less Amount paid on 24 September, 2010 (10,000,000) Less Amount paid on 30 December, 2010 (20,000,000) Less Amount paid on 25 February 2011 (62,50,000) Total Outstanding demand under Section 201(1) and Section 201(1A) after payment of taxes 29,193,478 From the outstanding demand of ₹ 1,08,69,094/- for A.Y.2008-2009, the ITAT had dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, we direct the AO that he will give effect to the order of the CIT(A) and after giving effect to order of the CIT(A) if there is no tax demand due from the assessee, then there is no need for order of stay from us. However, if there remains some demand against the assessee, we find that out of the demand of ₹ 7.21 crores for A.Y.2008-2009, even without giving effect to the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
