TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JUDGMENT (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) Heard learned senior advocate Shri S.N Soparkar for the petitioner and Shri Sudhir Mehta for the Revenue, who appears on a Caveat, for final disposal of the petition. The petitioner, a Government company, has challenged the action of the Income-tax authorities of insisting on petitioner depositing 100% tax demand raised by the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at during the discussion, the representative of the petitioner did not even agree to deposit 50% of the tax demand. In that view of the matter, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dunlop India Limited, 154 ITR 172 (SC), he passed the said order. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that all the four major additions made by the Assessing Officer were the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bic meter of gas presented by the assessee. This issue though decided by CIT [A] in earlier years against the assessee, the same is carried in appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Tribunal has already heard the appeals and the decision is expected very shortly. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Mehta for the Department opposed the petition contending that the Assessing Officer h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortly. In any case, the discretion lies with the Assessing Officer to impose such conditions, as found justified in the facts of the case. Such discretion was not governed by the fact whether the assessee agreed to deposit a certain percentage of the tax demand or not. The Assessing Officer had to therefore decide independently whether and to what extent relief was justified. In the facts of the ....