TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner ordered to deposit funds and provide title deeds to lift attachment, Tribunal to expedite appeal.</h1> <h3>M/s. DAMAC HOLDINGS PVT. LTD Versus CIT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I & OTHERS</h3> M/s. DAMAC HOLDINGS PVT. LTD Versus CIT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I & OTHERS - TMI Issues:1. Liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09.2. Attachment of properties by the 3rd respondent.3. Request for lifting the attachment and offering alternate security.4. Valuation of the property offered as alternate security.5. Consideration of the petitioner's request and disposal of the writ petition.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in real estate development, faced a liability issue for the assessment year 2008-09. Initially, an order (Ext.P1) was passed by the 1st respondent holding the petitioner liable. Subsequently, an appeal led to a reduction in liability through Ext.P2 order by the appellate authority. This revised liability amount was further rectified, resulting in Ext.P4. The current liability stands at approximately Rs.2.15 crores, with an ongoing appeal (Ext.P5) pending consideration by the 5th respondent Tribunal.2. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P6 order attaching specific properties of the petitioner to secure the interest of the respondents during the appeal process. The petitioner sought to utilize the attached property and made requests through Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 to lift the attachment, offering an alternate property as security. However, the request was initially denied through Ext.P9, leading to the filing of a writ petition.3. The petitioner's primary contention was to lift the attachment on the properties mentioned in Ext.P6 and substitute it with an alternate property mentioned in Ext.P8, valued at Rs.2.95 crores as per their claim. The court acknowledged the need for security but emphasized that if the petitioner could provide adequate security to safeguard the respondents' interests, there was no justification to maintain the attachment.4. Although the valuation of the property in Ext.P8 was not externally assessed, the court relied on the petitioner's assertion of its value. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.75,00,000 and the title deeds of the property mentioned in Ext.P8 within one month. The petitioner assured that the property was unencumbered and committed not to deal with it until the appeal's resolution.5. The court, considering the submissions and circumstances, issued directions for the petitioner to comply with the specified conditions to lift the attachment. Once the petitioner fulfills the obligations, as outlined in the directions, the attachment imposed by Ext.P6 will be lifted. Additionally, the 5th respondent Tribunal was instructed to expedite the disposal of the pending appeal (Ext.P5) with due notice to all concerned parties.This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the liability determination, property attachment, security provision, valuation considerations, and the final directives issued by the court for resolution.
TaxTMI 