2013 (5) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore 5th February, 2013.    (b) The assessee shall continue to pay an instalment of Rs.1 crore per month till this case is disposed of.    (c) The order shall be in force for a period of six months or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. 2. The demand raised against the assessee by virtue of the demand notice dated 02.11.2012 is Rs.16,42,55,970/-, which includes the demand payable pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the extent of Rs.15,81,63,498/-, the balance being interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal inasmuch as according to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iune Projects Private Limited had paid capital gain tax to the extent of Rs. 12 crores. 6. In the loss return filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had made a claim of depreciation at the rate of 25% on the intangible assets which was embedded in the slump sale. A claim of depreciation was also made at the rate of 15% with regard to the tangibles. The Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation claimed of Rs.10,14,68,882/- in respect of the intangibles. He, however, allowed the depreciation claimed by the petitioner with regard to the tangible assets. By doing so, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.4,34,47,670/- and computed the total tax liability of the petitioner at Rs.1,61,29,322/-. As against this,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt had not been claimed by way of expenditure by the petitioner. It was an amount which was embedded in the price paid in the slump sale. Even if we construe the said sale to be a sham or not to be slump sale at all, this amount of Rs.30.44 crores (approximately) could not be added to the income of the assessee under Section 40A(2) of the said Act or any other provision. Of course, disallowance for depreciation could be made if the law permitted. That disallowance had already been made by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, there was no occasion for any further disallowance insofar as the depreciation amount was concerned. 9. Apart from the said addition of Rs. 30.44 crores (approximately), the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....proximately) made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with regard to the purported disallowance under Section 40A(2) relating to the intangible assets purchased in the said slump sale. It is necessary to note that out of the total tax demand of Rs.15,81,63,498/-, an amount of Rs.1,62,40,170/- already stands paid as it was adjusted against the refunds due for the assessment year 2008-09. The balance tax payable would then be Rs.14,19,23,328/-, out of which, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.50 lacs has already been paid by 5th February, 2013, which leaves a balance of Rs.13,69,23,328/- and as against this, an amount of Rs.13,36,32,605/- is only on account of enhancement made of Rs.30.44 crores which, prima fac....