2014 (4) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent : Mr. Sudhir M. Mehta, Adv. 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entire amount pending such appeal. He noted that 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 add....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Assessing Officer as against 1.32 kg. per cubic 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 th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med us that the decision is likely to be rendered shortly. 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 wha....