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>Court dismisses stay application, orders recovery of Rs.6,95,43,498. Urges swift appeal process.</h1> <h3>M/s RELX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 78 (1) DELHI & ORS.</h3> M/s RELX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 78 (1) DELHI & ORS. - TMI Issues:1. Application for staying the demand rejected by Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax2. Recovery of entire demanded amount contrary to circulars3. Appeal pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)4. Delay in taking action by the petitionerAnalysis:1. The petitioner filed an application for staying the demand, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The rejection led to the recovery of the entire amount of Rs.6,95,43,498 concerning the Financial Year 2013-2014. 2. The petitioner argued that the rejection of the application and subsequent recovery were against the respondent's own circulars dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017. The petitioner offered to pay 20% of the demand, making the rejection and recovery unwarranted.3. An appeal against the order from which the demand originated was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court acknowledged that the concerned officer should not have recovered the entire amount while an appeal was pending.4. Despite the pending appeal, the petitioner did not take immediate action when the cause of action arose in December 2021 and when the notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act was issued in September 2022. The court noted that following up with the department was not sufficient, and the petitioner should have approached the court promptly.5. The court decided that no relief could be granted at the current stage. Instead, it directed an expeditious disposal of the appeal pending before the CIT(A) within four weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction for the CIT(A) to hear and decide the appeal promptly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
