TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 711
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yaprathap Junior Standing Counsel For the R2 : Mr.C.Mohan and M/s.A.Rexy Josephine Mary For M/s.King and Partridge Appearance of counsel in 45910, 47735, 47743, 47754 of 2025 For the Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman Senior Counsel for Mr.Vaibhav R.Venkatesh For the R1 : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Senior Standing Counsel and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap Junior Standing Counsel For the R2 : Mr.T.K.Bhaskar for Mr.B.Thilak Narayanan (in W.P.No.45910 of 2025) COMMON ORDER I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the individual petitioners in W.P. Nos. 45910, 47735, 47743, 47754 of 2025, learned Senior Counsel in W.P. No. 47005 of 2025, the learned counsel for Official Liquidator and the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department. 2. By this Common Order, all these writ petitions are being disposed of. 3. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the rejection order of the stay petitions filed by the petitioners for stay of demand and the consequential Recovery Notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The details of the impugned Orders/Notices in these Writ Petitions are as follows:- S No Writ Petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners at Rs. 32,04,74,250/- as per the prevailing guideline value and that the balance of Rs. 41,45,25,750/- was to be received in cash. 10. The Assessment Order dated 28.07.2021 has accordingly determined the proportionate sale consideration in favour of the respective petitioners who are the vendors of the aforesaid property as per the aforestated Memorandum of Understanding as below:- S.No. Name of Person/Company Land Area (in Acres) Share in Sale Consideration (Rs.) 1 Smt. Savithri Naidu 4.50 33,75,00,000 2 Shri Rajiv Naidu 2.56 19,20,00,000 3 Shri Vikram Naidu 1.74 13,05,00,000 4 M/s Match Point Tennis Academy India Private Limited 1.00 7,50,00,000 Total 9.80 73,50,00,000 11. As far as the petitioner company viz., M/s Match Point Tennis Academy is concerned, the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 7,09,64,274/- was arrived as under:- "Sale consideration : Rs. 7,50,00,000/- Less: (Cost of acquisition of Land: Rs. 11,07,460/-) Indexed cost of acquisition: Rs.11,07,460 * 1024/281 : Rs. 40,35,726/- Long Term Capital Gain (u/s. 54 of the Act) : Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rk Housing Projects Chennai Private Limited, which ultimately culminated in an Arbitral Award dated 14.12.2020. 20. By the aforesaid Arbitral Award, the claimants, who are the petitioners were entitled for a sum of Rs. 28,73,34,000/- as against the total claim of Rs. 33,00,00,000/-. The Copy of the Arbitral Award dated 14.12.2020 has not been kept along with the Typed Set of Papers. However, a copy of the operative portion of the Arbitral Award dated 14.12.2020 alone has been enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers. Same is reproduced below:- "a. There shall be an award against the 1st Respondent alone for a sum of Rs. 28,48,34,000/- towards sale consideration and Rs. 25 Lakhs towards compensation (premium) and thus, the total award amount shall be Rs. 28,73,34,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Crores Seventy Three Lakhs and Thirty Four Thousand Only). b. The above said award amount of Rs. 28,73,34,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 01.04.2015 to till the date of award and at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of realisation payable by the 1st Respondent. c. There shall be an order of attachment of the properti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the buyer namely M/s. Landmark Housing Projects Chennai Private Limited in various applications filed under Section 33 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 26. By the aforesaid Order dated 16.04.2025, one Mr. Ebenezar Inbaraj was appointed as the Liquidator to liquidate the said company (M/s. Landmark Housing Projects Chennai Private Limited) with a further direction to carry out the liquidation process subject to terms and conditions stipulated therein. 27. In response to the same, an Advertisement was issued by the Liquidator. The individual petitioners and the petitioner company filed a claim statement for a total sum of Rs. 58,66,73,051/- (Principal Rs. 28,73,34,000/- + Interest Rs. 29,93,39,051/-). 28. The Liquidator vide Communication dated 24.06.2025 admitted the claim of the Petitioners to an extent of Rs. 45,00,00,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 58,66,73,051/-. Relevant portion of the said communication admitting the claim to an extent of Rs. 45,00,00,000/- by the Liquidator reads as under:- "I find that a sum of Rs 45,00,00,000/- has been agreed as the total settlement by you under Memorandum of Compromise and Settlement dated 04.08.2024 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being made on the same ratio as set out above. Claimant Sale Deed value (in Rs. ) % of sale Deed Value to Total Allocation of Rs. 45 Crores claim admitted after deduction amount paid already Savithri Naidu 147,015,000 45.92 18,82,65,306 Raji Naidu 56,845,800 17.76 7,27,95,918 Vikram Naidu 83,635,200 26.12 10,71,02,041 Match Point Tennis Academy 32,670,000 10.20 4,18,36,735 Total 320,166,000 100.00 41,00,00,000 Further to the above, all of you are also aware that payment will be required to be made to the concerned Income Tax Authorities to the extent of the amount claimed by them under the Garnishee Orders served on me. As per the Garnishee Order, the Undersigned is allocating funds, payable to you as follows: Name of Claimant Total Amount Payable as per Admitted Claim Amount Demanded under Garnishee Order by Income Tax Amount Payable to Claimant after Deducting Payment to Income Tax Department as per Garnishee Order Demand Draft to be issued to Income Tax Department as per the Garnishee order Savithri Naidu 18,82,65,306 14,70,29,795 4,12,35,511 14,70,29,795 Raji Naidu ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tennis Academy with the 2nd Respondent Bank was blocked in the light of the garnishee order from the Income Tax Department which was communicated to the petitioner in W.P. No.47754 of 2025 namely, Rajiv Naidu (Managing Director of the Petitioner company in W.P. No.47005 of 2025) vide communication dated 26.11.2025. 35. On consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the individual petitioners and the petitioner Company have received a sum of Rs. 9,76,00,130/- from and out of Rs. 41 crores, after adjusting and factoring Rs. 4,00,00,000/-, which has been deposited before the Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet in C.C.No.121 of 2018, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.9773/2025 dated 01.09.2025, thus filed by one Mrs.Bhuvaneswari Udayakumar, the Director of the Company under liquidation. 36. Since the individual petitioners and the petitioner company viz., M/s Match Point Tennis Academy had failed to obtain stay of recovery of the amount, a sum of Rs. 31,14,67,542/- was transferred by the liquidator as against a sum of Rs. 32,18,49,075/- claimed by the Income Tax Department towards the tax due confirmed against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all relevant facts shall decide the quantum/proportion of demand to be paid by the assessee as lump sum payment for granting a stay of the balance demand. (C) In a case where stay of demand is granted by the assessing officer on payment of 15% of the disputed demand and the assessee is still aggrieved, he may approach the jurisdictional administrative Pr. CIT/ CIT for a review of the decision of the assessing officer. (D) The assessing officer shall dispose of a stay petition within 2 weeks of filing of the petition. If a reference has been made to Pr. CIT/ CIT under para 4 (B) above or a review petition has been filed by the assessee under para 4 (C) above, the same shall also be disposed of by the Pr. CIT/CIT within 2 weeks of the assessing officer making such reference or the assessee filing such review, as the case may be. (E) In granting stay, the Assessing Officer may impose such conditions as he may think fit. He may, inter alia,- (i) require an undertaking from the assessee that he will cooperate in the early disposal of appeal failing which the stay order will be cancelled: (ii) reserve the right to review the order passed afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 45,00,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 41,00,00,000/- have been allocated as the amount payable factoring the Order dated 01.09.2025 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.9773 of 2025. 44. The individual petitioners and the petitioner company viz., M/s. Match Point Tennis Academy are on appeal before the Appellate Authority against the respective assessment orders. These appeals have to be disposed of in due course of time by the Appellate Authority. 45. Pending such disposal of the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority, the Income Tax Department is entitled to recover the amount subject to any stay order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT vs. LG Electronics India (P.) Ltd., [2018] 18 SCC 447 has held as under:- "The subjects circular which has extracted above also indicates that the issue can be decided by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Department or the Commissioner of Income Tax Department, wherever the demand has been confirmed pursuant to a search proceedings. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/Commissioner of Income ....