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 directs prompt tax assessment resolution for 2012-2013, sets aside premature demand.</h1> <h3>M/s MCML ECI JOINT VENTURE, M/s ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD., M/s MCML SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -6, TAX RECOVERY OFFICER-1</h3> M/s MCML ECI JOINT VENTURE, M/s ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD., M/s MCML SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, PRL. COMMISSIONER OF ... Issues:1. Tax liability of petitioner No.1 in a joint venture.2. Validity of demand raised by respondent No.4 during pending appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax.3. Dispute regarding tax assessment for the assessment year 2012-2013.Analysis:Issue 1: Tax Liability of Petitioner No.1 in a Joint VentureThe petitioners, comprising petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in a joint venture named M/s. MCML ECI Joint Venture, secured a contract from Indian Railways. The contention arose regarding the taxation of the consideration received from this contract at the hands of petitioner No.1. The petitioners argued that petitioner No.1 is not an association of persons and should not be taxed. They claimed that the consideration was distributed between petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as per the joint venture agreement, making them liable for the tax instead. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 for further examination to determine the tax liability of petitioner No.1.Issue 2: Validity of Demand Raised During Pending AppealDespite the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, respondent No.4 issued a demand letter on 04.03.2022, requesting payment of 20% of the outstanding tax amount. The petitioners argued that this demand was premature and should not have been raised while the matter was under consideration before the appellate authority. The court held that demanding payment during the pendency of the appeal was inappropriate and set aside the demand.Issue 3: Dispute Regarding Tax Assessment for the Assessment Year 2012-2013The dispute primarily revolved around the tax assessment for the assessment year 2012-2013. The petitioners challenged the tax liability of petitioner No.1 and objected to the demand raised by respondent No.4. The court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 to expedite the disposal of the case. It clarified that no opinion on the merits of the case was expressed, leaving it to the appellate authority to decide in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the petitioners must pay the determined tax amount subject to further challenges without claiming the benefit of limitation.In conclusion, the High Court set aside the demand raised by respondent No.4 and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 to promptly resolve the tax assessment matter without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioners were instructed to comply with the tax determination and were not entitled to claim the benefit of limitation in this regard.
TaxTMI 