2018 (9) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5.3.2016 as per Annexure-F by Respondent No.2, till disposal of the appeal No. ITA 146 by the Respondent No.3. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner - company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and installation of outdoor fitness equipment, outdoor flooring for sports etc., for the last seven years in India. The petitioner company had issued shares of the company to a public listed company i.e, Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited and two others. The petitioner took money from these investors and issued equity shares of the petitioner company in their favour and the said transaction was done in the Assessment year 2013-14. The return of income of the petitioner for the Assessment year 2013-14 was picked up for scrutiny....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al is pending for consideration and a stay application was preferred before the Respondent No.4. Despite the pendency of the appeals and stay applications, the Respondent No.5 issued repeated notices for payment of alleged tax and arrears. Therefore the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.45985/2017 before this Court and this Court after hearing both the parties by an order dated 9.10.2017 disposed of the petition directing the appellate authorities to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and further recorded a finding that till the appellate authorities dispose of the stay applications, the lower assessing authority shall not take any coercive measures for recovery of the disputed demand against the petitioner - assessee. 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... counsel on taking notice for respondents contended that the petitioner has paid 10% of the outstanding demand of Rs. 17,75,000/- for the Assessment year 2013-14 in terms of the interim order dated 10.11.2017 passed by the appellate authority. But, in terms of the modified Board's Instruction, the petitioner is required to pay 20% of the disputed demand and hence he is required to pay remaining 10% of the disputed demand. Therefore he sought to justify the impugned demand notices issued by Respondent NO.5. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that this Court by an order dated 9.10.2017 made in Writ Petition No.45985/2017 while disposing of the writ petition directed the Appellate Authority to dispos....