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>Supreme Court Rejects Special Leave Petition, Upholds Lower Court Decision Under Article 136 Constitutional Powers</h1> <h3>MALCO ENERGY LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) (1), MUMBAI & ANR.</h3> SC dismissed SLP, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court ruled that no substantial legal grounds existed warranting interference under ... Stay the recovery of tax demands - Appellant is a loss-making company - Whether unconditional stay should be granted? - disturbing the profit and loss account when capital expenditure is debited to the profit and loss account to avoid book profit tax in a manner not permitted by the Companies Act - HC [2025 (2) TMI 243 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] though some arguable issues have been raised, we do not think that this is a case where the decisions relied upon concerning a strong prima facie case would be attracted and entitle the Appellant to an unconditional stay on demand. Each case would turn on its facts. The arguments based on high-pitched assessment, CBDT circulars and the decisions relied upon in that regard were mainly in the context of the first appeal against the assessment order. Today, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has decided the matter, confirming the demands. The usual rule would be a deposit of the entire demanded amount. However, since the rectification application is pending and Appellant/Applicant has urged that if the same is allowed, the tax liability will be reduced to Rs. 68.91 Crores, some departure can be made from this usual rule. But no case is made out for an unconditional stay. HELD THAT:- No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. The Supreme Court, through Hon'ble Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner. The Court held that 'No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.' Consequently, the petitions were dismissed and all pending applications disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
