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 granted early appeal hearing against Tax Commissioner's orders & notices. Cooperation agreed for quick resolution.</h1> <h3>M/s. Liberal Realtors LLP, Mumbai Versus The Income Tax Officer 32 (2) -1 & Ors.</h3> M/s. Liberal Realtors LLP, Mumbai Versus The Income Tax Officer 32 (2) -1 & Ors. - TMI Issues:Challenge to orders by Commissioner of Income Tax, recovery notice issuance, stay of demand application, assessment order dispute, financial difficulty in payment, early hearing of appeal, recovery of balance demand, cooperation for appeal disposal.Analysis:1. The Petition challenges the orders dated 18th May 2017 by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the subsequent recovery notices issued by Revenue officers. The Petitioner sought a stay of the demand following an Assessment Order dated 20th March 2017 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the Petitioner's income at Rs. 71.63 Crores for Assessment Year 2015-16.2. Being dissatisfied with the Assessment Order, the Petitioner filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 15th April 2017 and applied for a stay of recovery of the demand until the appeal's disposal as per Section 220(6) of the Act.3. Due to financial constraints, the Petitioner paid 15% of the disputed demand in installments following a CBDT circular. However, the Commissioner directed the Petitioner to pay an additional 15% of the disputed demand, totaling 30%, in accordance with powers granted under a Circular dated 29th February 2016.4. The Petitioner's application for early hearing of the appeal was granted, and the hearing commenced on 22nd September 2017 with written submissions filed. The court inquired whether the Revenue would recover the balance 15% of the demand while the appeal was pending, to which the Revenue stated they would not take coercive action until the appeal was disposed of.5. Both parties agreed to cooperate for an early disposal of the appeal, with the Petitioner committing to attend hearings without seeking adjournments. The court clarified that they did not examine the merits of the challenge to the impugned orders and disposed of the petition accordingly, with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 