TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r>THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN PETITIONERS: SRI.ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV. RESPONDENTS: SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADV. ORDER The case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and together formed a joint venture in the name and style of M/s. MCML ECI Joint Venture which is petitioner No.1 and the said joint venture was able to procure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioners was pleased to remand the matter back to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 by its order dated 28.02.2018. Since then, the matter is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6. Thereafter, on 04.03.2022, the respondent No.4 has raised a demand vide Annexure - J to the writ petition which reads as under:- "Sir/Madam/M/s, Subject: Proceedings und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n received from Indian Railways has been distributed between petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and they are liable to tax and it is erroneous to tax petitioner No.1 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 and that when the matter was pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, respondent No.4 ought not to have issued the impugned demand. On the said grounds it is prayed that the impugned demand letter d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, respondent No.3 herein, on 28.02.2018 itself. For reasons best known to him, he is yet to decide the said matter. It is only upon examining the case of the petitioners by respondent No.3, it can be concluded whether petitioner No.1 is an association of person, who is liable to tax or not. Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate for respondent No.....