2014 (3) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... senior counsel Shri P.J. Pardivala submitted that the main issue involve in this case is reduction of the claim for deduction u/s.10A, amounting to Rs.4,83,24,907/- by the Assessing Officer. The total demand payable after the order of the CIT(A) was computed at Rs.2,33,85,261/-, which includes interest of Rs.72,57,495/- under section 234B. Out of the said demand sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- has already been paid by the assessee and only Rs.63,85,261/- remains outstanding, which is mainly on account of interest. In this case, stay was initially granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 27th January 2012 in S.A.No.64/M/2012, in terms of which, stay of the outstanding demand was granted until disposal of appeal, subject to the period of six months.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Thus, qua this issue, the Tribunal in the earlier years has taken the stand against the assessee. 5. Now before us, senior counsel Shri P.J. Pardivala submitted that against the said order the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court u/s.260A, which is already in the rotation of hearing and now the hearing of the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court has been fixed for 25th April 2014. On the merits of the case, he submitted that the issue involved in the assessee's case is otherwise squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held that assessee is entitled to exemption u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v. ACIT report (2011) 16 taxmann.com46(Mum), which it has been held that, only when there is strong prima facie case in favour of the assessee, then only the stay should be granted. Thus, he strongly opposed to the extension of the stay of order. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is an admitted fact that in this case, similar issue has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal, vide order dated 30.03.2012.However, before us, the learned senior counsel has strongly relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Limite....