TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al had directed the assessee to pay sum of Rs. 30 crores and for the balance demand, collateral security was required to be furnished in the following manner:- i) Fixed deposit under lien Rs. 60,00,00,000 ii) Bank Guarantee Rs. 207,26,54,239 Rs. 267,26,54,239 2. Thereafter, from time to time, the stay was extended by the Tribunal vide separate orders, as the appeal could not be disposed off, without any fault on the part of the assessee to conduct the hearing. In the stay application filed for grant of extension of stay being S.A. no.250/Mum./2013, the Tribunal, vide order dated 20th September 2013, directed the applicant assessee to pay Rs. 30 crores more i.e., 50% of the fixed deposit kept as a lien to the Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case was adjourned to 11th July 2014, on the request of the Department. Again on 11th July 2014, adjournment was sought by the Department on the same ground that process of appointment of Special Counsel would be done very shortly and the case was finally posted for hearing of stay application on 18th July 2014. On this day also, the Department sought adjournment on the ground that the appointed Special Counsel, Shri Girish Dave, is travelling outside and, therefore, he is unable to attend the Court. The said adjournment application was rejected as it was made clear earlier that no further adjournment would be given. 3. Hence, the learned Senior Departmental Representative represented the matter. Accordingly, both the parties were hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y. 1995-96 i.e. before 1st April 1995. b) That the business of the Applicant was formed by way of splitting up/re-construction of business already in existence and therefore, it does not fulfill the conditions laid down under section 80IA (3)(i) of the Act. c) That the Applicant is governed by the erstwhile provisions of section 80IA of the Act, that were applicable when it commenced providing cellular mobile telephony services, and not the new section 80IA as introduced by Finance Act, 1999 and as amended by Finance Act, 2001. d) That even otherwise the Applicant is necessarily required to claim deduction for full ten consecutive years under section 80IA of the Act, beginning from the A.Y. in which the Applicant started providing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w that the order dated 20 September 2013 is unsustainable in law taking into consideration the facts of the present case. We therefore, modify the impugned order dated 20 September 2013 and do away with the variation of the terms of the stay granted by the Tribunal. 5) We are informed that the petition has filed application for extension of stay before the Tribunal and the same is listed for hearing on 4 July 2014. The Tribunal would consider the petitioner's application for extension of stay granted earlier. At that point of time the Tribunal would consider all facts and circumstances of the case and decide the extension application for stay filed by the petitioner. At this stage besides modifying the impugned order dated 20 September 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....low for making the payment towards demand and, therefore, no stay should be granted as the balance of connivance is no longer in favour of the assessee. Alternatively, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that in view of the third proviso to section 254(2A), the Tribunal cannot extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2014] 44 Taxman.com 166 (Del.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s E-com Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 252 CTR 281 (Kar.). 9. In the rejoinder, the learned Counsel, Shri Tarun Gulati, submitted that the orders of the Assessing Officer h....