9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008. Considering the payments already made by the assessee and taking note of the financial hardship pointed out by the assessee, we are of the view that there should be a stay of recovery of the balance outstanding demand i.e., ₹ 4,62,06,437 for a period of six months from the date of this order, or till the disposal of the appeal; whichever is earlier. We also find that the appeal is already fixed hearing on 01.10.2020. The assessee shall not seek adjournment, except for unavoidable reasons. Stay petition is allowed. - SP No.145/Bang/2020 [in ITA No.407/Bang/2020] - - - Dated:- 7-8-2020 - Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And Shri B R Baskaran, Accountant Member For the Applicant : Shri Sharath Rao, CA For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the revenue on the ground that the assessee has not entered into an agreement with the Central Govt. / State Govt. / local authority / statutory body, as is required u /s. 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act. 3. Another reason given by the revenue authorities was that FFF was not located within the precincts of the airport. This resulted in the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IA to the extent of ₹ 13,60,29,342 being rejected by the revenue authorities. 4. Another issue that needs adjudication in the appeal of assessee is with regard to the disallowance of interest on hedging transaction. The Petitioner had taken a foreign currency term loan from Punjab National Bank ( PNB ) for se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the disallowance of interest on hedging transaction is concerned, it is the plea of assessee that it is an allowable expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act and that rejection of the claim on the ground that the asset for acquisition on which borrowings were made had not been put to use was not correct, because the asset was put to use as early as on 24.05.2008. 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that it had already paid 20% of the outstanding demand as is required under proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act. He pointed out that due to breakdown of COVID-19 pandemic, the aviation industry has come to a standstill and consequently there was a huge fall in the demand for aviation fuel, which has adversely impacted the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
