TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 20 January 2014 at Exhibits-O and Q respectively of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Mumbai and the Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai respectively. By the impugned orders dated 2 January 2014 and 20 January 2014, the Petitioner's application to unconditionally stay the balance demand of tax of Rs.9.00 crores was rejected notwithstanding the fact that appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was partially heard. 3. The Petitioner is an wholly owned subsidiary of Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (SHCIL) which in turn is promoted and owned by nine All India Financial Institutions, such as, GIC, LIC, UTI etc. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of stock brokerage. 4. For the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner deposited the amount of Rs.3.00 crores and on expiry of the period of stay, sought further extension of stay with the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(2). However, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 2 January 2014 rejected the application for stay in view of the fact that the stay granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax for A.Y.2010-11 by order dated 21 August 2013 has expired on 31 December 2013. On further application, the Commissioner of Income Tax-4 by order dated 20 January 2014 granted conditional stay of demand on further payment of Rs.3.00 crores by 31 January 2014 and balance 50% of the total demand of Rs.6.00 crores is stayed up to 31st March 2014 or up to the disposal of first appeal, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....already paid the tax on the amount. Therefore, there is no justification to disallow the same on account of failure to deduct tax. (d) The disallowances under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act of sub-brokerage paid is contrary to law and without any basis or justification. The sub-brokerage @ 50% paid to its holding company up to the A.Y.2009-10 was allowed as expenditure by the Assessing Officer without raising any dispute. However, in the A.Y.2010-11, the payment of sub-brokerage was up to 75% of the gross brokerage earned by the Petitioner company, which was in conformity with the market trends for the A.Y.2010-11. In any case, the payment of subbrokerage @ 50% of the gross brokerage earned by the petitioner should have been allowed as all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove table, the tax payable by the Petitioner including surcharge and education cess would have been Rs.4,09,94,697/- and after deducting advance tax paid and calculating interest on the tax amount, the Petitioner's liability would have been Rs.4,01,67,131/-, against which the Petitioner has already paid Rs.3.00 crores as mentioned by Commissioner of Income Tax in the impugned order dated 20 January 2014. Even according to the Respondents, as indicated in their affidavit-in-reply dated 7 February 2014, an amount of Rs.3.41 crores is to be refunded to the Petitioner. Therefore, the balance oustadnding amount would only be of Rs.60,67,131. Without prejudice to its rights and contentions, the Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity concerned can briefly indicate whether the assessee is financially sould and viable to deposit the amount if the authority wants the assessee to so deposit; d. The authority concerned will also examine whether the time to prefer an appeal has expired. Generally, coercive measures may not be adopted during the period provided by the statue to go in appeal. However, if the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the assessee is like to defeat the demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order; and e. We clarify that if the authority concerned complies with the above parameters while passing orders on the stay application, then the authorities on the administrative side....