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>Taxpayer granted stay, can escalate to higher authority within a week. Revenue to hold off actions.</h1> <h3>Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) 1 & Others</h3> Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) 1 & Others - TMI Issues:Challenge to orders under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding attachment of property; Appeal filed to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking stay of demand; Agreement between parties on the course of action.Analysis:The judgment involves a challenge to orders dated 28th March, 2016 issued under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, attaching the petitioner's immovable and movable property. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) seeking a stay of demand following the Assessment Order passed on 31st March, 2016. The petitioner's senior counsel suggested a middle ground where the orders of attachment could continue but not be acted upon further by the Revenue until the stay application is decided. The Revenue agreed to this course with the condition that the attached property should not be alienated during this period.The court directed that if the Assessing Officer rejects the stay application, the petitioner can apply to the next superior authority within a week. The Revenue was instructed not to take further action on the impugned notices until the petitioner's application is decided and for three weeks thereafter to allow for legal remedies. The attachment orders were to remain undisturbed, with the petitioner undertaking not to dispose of the attached property. The court emphasized that its observations should not influence the decision-making process of the tax authorities. It was also mandated that the application process be expedited, and the time taken for this process would not count towards the life of the attachment orders under Section 281B(2) of the Act.The judgment was based on the consensus between the parties, and the court did not delve into the issue of whether filing a stay application would restrict the Revenue's powers to act on the attachment orders. The petition was disposed of as per the agreed terms, with no order as to costs, and the parties were instructed to act upon the authenticated copy of the order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
