TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the outset by Ld. Senior Counsel of the assessee that in this case stay was granted earlier by the AO himself vide his order dated 21.03.2006 for a period of six months or disposal of appeal pending before the Tribunal, whichever is earlier subject to the condition of payment of 10% of the total demand raised. The condition was fulfilled by the assessee and 10% demand was paid as was directed. Ld. Counsel also drew our attention upon the copy of Challan evidencing payment of Rs. 13,18,36,562/-. However, 'six months' period expired but appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal was not yet disposed of, therefore another application was filed by the assessee before the AO for extension of the stay, while all other facts and circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el) wherein it has been clearly held that investment made for strategic reasons shall not be considered for computing disallowance u/s 14A. It was also shown to us by the Ld. Senior Counsel that for making investment in these group companies, no borrowed funds were used by the assessee. It was shown that the source of investment was mainly from Right Issue of shares and Share Swap and minor amount was soured through internal cash accruals as well. Thus, in any case, disallowance u/s 14A is prima facie not sustainable and thus balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee. Reliance was placed in this regard upon another judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Delite Enterprise (ITA No.110 of 2009 dated 26th Februa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 23rd June 2014. 6. We have considered the orders passed by the AO as well as submissions made by both the sides before us. It is noted that in this case the AO had granted stay of recovery of pending demand vide its order dated 21.03.2016, which reads as under: "As per the discussion held. AR confirmed that assessee company is ready to Pay 10% of the total demand raised. Subject to that the stay of demand is granted till 6 month or decision of appeal whichever is earlier. The assessee is requested to pay the demand latest by 29.03.2016. Stay is granted subject to adherence of compliance to above payment." 7. Thereafter the assessee paid requisite amount as was directed and there is no dispute on that. Subsequently, it is noted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. DR. Under these circumstances, we find that AO was not justified in refusing to extend the stay. It is noted that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in assessee's own case in Vodafone India Limited v. Union of India for A.Y. 2006-07 vide its order dated 23rd June, 2014 extended the stay on the same logic by observing as under: "We find that the impugned order dated 20 September 2013 making variation in the conditions of the stay already granted was not at all justified. This is for the reason that at that point of time there was not apparent change in the facts and circumstances of the case from 17 May 2013 when the stay was granted earlier. Therefore, we are of the view that the order dated 20 September 2013 is unsustainable in law taking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by approaching the higher authorities i.e. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the purpose of seeking stay and assessee has not done the same and therefore Tribunal should not intervene in the matter as of now. In this regard, it is noted by us that AO had given very short time for payment of balance entire demand of 90%. On this issue, Ld. Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of DHL Express (India) (P) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 140 TTJ38(Mum) as well as Honeywell Automation India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 138 TTJ 373(Pune) wherein it was held that there is no requirement of law that assessee should first necessarily approach the CIT and wait for its decision before approaching the Tribunal for grant of stay. We have....