9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the petitioner by the first appellate authority within the period specified, there shall be stay of the demand notice issued pursuant to the assessment order dated 28th December, 2019. - WRIT PETITION NO.728 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul K. Jasani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for Respondents. P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr.J.D.Mistri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, learned standing counsel, Revenue for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 12th February, 2020 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 1,11,50,90,540.00 as the amount of tax due for the assessment year 2014-15. 5. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai, also referred to as the first appellate authority, on 22nd January, 2020 bearing acknowledgment No.294727091220120. 6. Simultaneously, petitioner also filed an application before respondent No.1 on 23rd January, 2020 seeking stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Act. By order dated 12th February, 2020, respondent No.1 rejected the application for stay of demand, granting liberty to the petitioner to pay 20% of the total demand within 3 days in which event it was stated that the outstanding de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with the stay application of the petitioner, Mr.Mistri has placed reliance on the decision of this court in UTI Mutual Fund Vs. Income Tax Officer, 345 ITR 71, in which this court laid down certain guidelines for the revenue authorities to be borne in mind while dealing with stay application. Referring to guideline No.3, he submits that in so far the previous assessment years of the petitioner are concerned, provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were never applied to the petitioner. He therefore, submits that as per guideline No.3 if the Assessing Officer has taken a view contrary to what has been held in the preceding previous years without there being a material change in facts or law, that will be a relevant consideration in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
