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>High Court rules on payment orders for income tax dues, balancing interests and upholding legal principles.</h1> <h3>M/s. Akshya Infrastructure Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai., The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited And M/s. Axis Bank Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s. Akshya Infrastructure Private Limited, M/s. Mothilal Oswal Investment Advisors Private Limited, Securities and Exchange Board of India</h3> M/s. Akshya Infrastructure Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai., The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, The Branch Manager, ... Issues:1. Validity of orders demanding payment from petitioners based on income tax dues.2. Effect of subsequent events on the impugned orders.3. Authority's ability to pursue recovery based on fresh assessment.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of orders demanding paymentThe judgment addresses the situation where a company, M/s. Stylog Infrastructure Private Limited, had income tax dues, and recovery measures were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry. The company failed to make the payment, leading to demands for payment issued to other entities associated with the company. The Writ Petitions challenge the orders demanding payment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on various dates. The court examined the legality of these orders under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 2: Effect of subsequent eventsFollowing the filing of the Writ Petitions, it was revealed that the assessment of income tax liability for M/s. Stylog Infrastructure Private Limited had been set aside by the Income Tax Tribunal. Subsequently, a fresh assessment order was passed in 2020, against which the company filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The court considered these subsequent events and their impact on the impugned orders demanding payment from the petitioners based on the earlier assessment orders.Issue 3: Authority's ability to pursue recoveryConsidering the subsequent events and the fresh assessment raising a new demand for payment, the court set aside the earlier orders demanding payment from the petitioners. The judgment clarified that while the impugned orders were invalidated, the concerned authority retained the right to pursue the claim for recovery based on the new assessment in accordance with the law. The court's decision aimed to balance the interests of the parties involved while upholding legal principles and procedures.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, in the given judgment, addressed the validity of orders demanding payment based on income tax dues, considered the impact of subsequent events on these orders, and clarified the authority's ability to pursue recovery based on a fresh assessment. The judgment provided a balanced approach by setting aside the earlier orders while allowing the recovery process to continue based on the new assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
