TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax. By the impugned order, the petitioner's representation made under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) seeking complete stay of the demand of Rs. 62.38 crores arising out of the assessment order dated 21st December, 2017 relating to Assessment Year 2015-16 till the petitioner's pending appeal is disposed off by the Commissioner of Direct Taxes (Appeals) (CIT (A)), was partly rejected by directing the petitioners to pay 50% of the demand. 3. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order dated 21st December, 2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act determining a tax demand of Rs. 62.38 crores. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an Appeal on 23rd January, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed off by the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals). On 16th February, 2018 the Writ Petition No. 389 of 2018 was disposed of and the respondents were restrained from adopting any coercive proceedings till the disposal of its application dated 14th February, 2016 by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. Now the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2018 has been passed by Commissioner of Income Tax. The fundamental basis of the petitioners application for stay before the Commissioner of Income Tax was that the Assessment order dated 21st December, 2017 of the Assessing Officer raising the demand of Rs. 62.38 crores was without jurisdiction. This demand was raised on account of the fair market value of the shares which had been issued at a pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee having opted for the DCF Method, the Assessing Officer, if at all not satisfied with the valuation report could have called for fresh valuation or even independently determined the fair market value, but this could only be done by adopting the DCF Method. Therefore, it was submitted that, ex-facie the impugned order was in face of the statutory provisions and could not be upheld. Therefore, an unconditional stay was sought of a demand arising from Assessment order dated 21st December, 2017. 7. Mr. Mohanty, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue in support of the impugned order states that the Assessing Officer is entitled to examine the correctness of the Valuation Report submitted by the Assessee. The DCF Method is worked out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done only on a reference by the Assessing Officer to the Administrative Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax that the party should be asked to deposit in excess of 20% of the demand for stay of the balance demand. Thus, prima-facie, the direction on the part of the Commissioner directing payment of 50% of the demand of Rs. 62.38 crores payable consequent to the order dated 22nd December, 2017 is bad in law. 9. We note that, the Commissioner of Income-Tax in the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2018 does not deal with the primary grievance of the petitioner. This, even after he concedes with the method of valuation namely, NAV Method or the DCF Method to determine the fair market value of shares has to be done/adopted at the Assessee&#....