2019 (5) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondents Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue with Mr.Sunil Kumar Yadav, Additional CIT, Special Range 8.   O R D E R 1. The Petitioner challenges an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-08 (Respondent No.2) dated 28th February 2019 calling upon the Petitioner to pay the following outstanding demands immediately: "(i) 10 percent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petition by issuing the following directions as far as the question of stay of demand was concerned: "4. As far as the question of stay of demand is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) should first decide the application pending under Section 220(6) within ten days. During that time, the notices under Section 226(3) in question shall no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 55,97,78,708. In para 4 of the impugned order, in a tabular form, the details of these demands which have been raised from AY 2001-2002 onwards have been set out. For the AY 2016-17 the demand of Rs. 10,07,79,190 includes self assessment tax of Rs. 4,13,25,871/- plus interest of Rs. 1,15,71,243/- totalling to Rs. 5,28,97,115/-. This is on the Assessee's own admission the tax payable by it for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o harsh. 9. As far as the refunds are concerned, it is a separate subject matter, which the Petitioner has to pursue in accordance with law. What the Court is concerned about here is the question of stay demand in relation to the appeals pending before the CIT (A). The limited scope is whether under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the above order requiring the Petitioner to pay 10%....