Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
    6. Text Search
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search ❯
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    NewsBills
    Extension of date of incorporation for eligible start-up for exemption
    NewsBills
    Relief to start-ups in carrying forward and setting off of losses
    NewsBills
    Penalty for cash loan/ transactions against primary co-operatives
    NewsBills
    Increasing threshold limit for co-operatives to withdraw cash without TDS
    NewsBills
    Relief to sugar co-operatives from past demand
    NewsBills
    Agnipath Scheme, 2022
    NewsBills
    Promoting timely payments to Micro and Small Enterprises
    Case LawsIBC
    Power of NCLT/NCLAT vis-à-vis writ jurisdiction of the high court.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Corporate Debtor includes a corporate guarantor even if Principal Borrower being an individual/sole ...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Interpretation of term "basic excise duty".
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act 2...
    Case LawsIBC
    Limitation Act and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankr...
    Case LawsGST
    An insight into Advance Ruling and the functioning of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show cause notice issued by Additional Director General-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is not a...
    Case LawsGST
    Writ Petition cannot be a tool to escape the statutory remedies available under the law-Supreme Cour...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment conducted after 4 years by Income Tax Authorities.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Principles of Natural Justice upheld by the Court/s.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Liberal interpretation of limitation law by the supreme court in covid-19 phase.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Examining the legality of confiscation of an Imported car.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show cause notice non est in the eyes of law for want of jurisdiction of the authority issuing it.
❮
❯
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    NewsBills
    Extension of date of incorporation for eligible start-up for exemption
    Show AI Summary
    Extension of start up incorporation cutoff expands section 80 IAC eligibility, applying from the stated effective assessment year onward.
    The amendment extends the incorporation cutoff so that enterprises incorporated on or before 1st April 2024 qualify as eligible start ups for the three year full deduction under section 80 IAC, subject to the existing turnover ceiling, Inter Ministerial Board certification and other statutory conditions, and is to have effect from 1st April 2023 for the relevant assessment year and subsequent years.
    NewsBills
    Relief to start-ups in carrying forward and setting off of losses
    Show AI Summary
    Carry-forward loss relief extended for startups, easing shareholding continuity requirement to permit set-off of past losses.
    Amendment extends the proviso to the carry forward and set off rule so that eligible start-ups may set off carried forward losses incurred within ten years of incorporation under the existing shareholders-continuity relaxation, aligning this period with the ten-year reference in the start-up incentive provision; the change applies from the assessment year 2023-24.
    NewsBills
    Penalty for cash loan/ transactions against primary co-operatives
    Show AI Summary
    Cash transaction limit relief for primary co operatives raises the threshold before penalty for member transactions.
    The amendments raise the electronic payment threshold for primary agricultural credit societies and primary co operative agricultural and rural development banks so that acceptance of loans or deposits from, or repayment to, their members will be required to be by account payee cheque, account payee bank draft or online bank transfer only where the amount equals or exceeds two lakh rupees; penalties will attach only above that threshold.
    NewsBills
    Increasing threshold limit for co-operatives to withdraw cash without TDS
    Show AI Summary
    TDS threshold for co-operative societies increased, altering cash withdrawal TDS applicability and retaining higher deduction rates for non-filers.
    The Finance Bill, 2023 amends Section 194N to treat co-operative societies as if the statutory cash-withdrawal TDS threshold were replaced by a higher threshold for the purpose of that section, effective from the start of the next financial year, while preserving the existing non-filer deduction rates and the statutory definition of non-filer.
    NewsBills
    Relief to sugar co-operatives from past demand
    Show AI Summary
    Deductibility of sugarcane purchase price: recomputation permitted for co-operative mills where prices meet government-fixed approvals.
    Confirms that payments by sugar co-operative mills for purchase of sugarcane at prices equal to or less than government-fixed or approved rates are allowable as a deduction for computing business income. Where such deductions were previously claimed and disallowed, an assessee may apply to the tax authority for recomputation of total income for the relevant previous year; the authority must allow the deduction to the extent the expenditure meets the qualifying price condition and apply rectification provisions and the prescribed processing period.
    NewsBills
    Agnipath Scheme, 2022
    Show AI Summary
    Agniveer Corpus Fund tax exemption: contributions and Seva Nidhi receipts exempt, government contribution treated as salary with deduction.
    The Agnipath Scheme creates a non-lapsable Agniveer Corpus Fund holding Agniveer contributions, matching Government contributions and interest; Seva Nidhi is the one-time terminal package payable on completion of engagement. The Finance Bill proposes to exempt Seva Nidhi receipts from income tax and to permit deduction from total income of both the Agniveer's deposits and the Government's matching contributions, while treating the Government contribution as salary with a corresponding deduction and extending a similar deduction in the new tax regime.
    NewsBills
    Promoting timely payments to Micro and Small Enterprises
    Show AI Summary
    Payment timing for micro and small enterprises: tax deduction allowed only on actual payment when MSMED timelines are missed.
    An amendment to Section 43B inserts a clause disallowing accrual-based deduction for sums payable to micro and small enterprises when payment is made after the time limits prescribed by the MSMED Act; the proviso to Section 43B will not apply to such payments, and only payments made within the MSMED timelines qualify for accrual-based deduction.
    Case LawsIBC
    Power of NCLT/NCLAT vis-à-vis writ jurisdiction of the high court.
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction protects review where specialised tribunals act beyond statutory powers; tribunals may only inquire into fraud.
    Writ jurisdiction remains available to correct a tribunal acting without statutory power; NCLT lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate MMDR Act lease disputes, so a writ challenging its order was justified. NCLT/NCLAT may inquire into allegations of fraud in CIRP, but they cannot adjudicate substantive statutory or quasi judicial disputes that require judicial review of administrative action.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Corporate Debtor includes a corporate guarantor even if Principal Borrower being an individual/sole ...
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate guarantor liability: written acknowledgement restarts limitation and permits insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor.
    A corporate guarantor qualifies as a corporate debtor liable to insolvency proceedings where its liability mirrors the principal borrower's, and a written acknowledgement of liability restarts the limitation period, enabling a financial creditor to initiate insolvency proceedings despite an earlier default date; factual and other objections remain open for merit-based adjudication in the insolvency forum.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Interpretation of term "basic excise duty".
    Show AI Summary
    Interpretation of basic excise duty: exemptions do not extend to separately enacted cesses or ancillary excise levies.
    An exemption of basic excise duty must be given a strict, literal construction limited to that duty alone; it does not extend to duties or cesses-such as National Calamity Contingent Duty, education cesses, additional or auxiliary excise duties-that are imposed by different legislation or for different purposes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act 2...
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural Amendments to Civil Procedure reinforce expedited summons, alternative dispute resolution and affidavit-based witness examination.
    The Supreme Court upheld the 1999 and 2002 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure as procedural reforms to expedite litigation. Key clarifications include issuance of summons within thirty days under Section 27 provided plaintiffs have completed enabling steps; promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution under Section 89 with suggested rules and case management; Order 7 Rule 11 permitting rejection of plaints for specified noncompliance but allowing rectification; and Order 18 Rule 4 requiring examination-in-chief by affidavit subject to court discretion and permitting mechanical recording of evidence.
    Case LawsIBC
    Limitation Act and the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankr...
    Show AI Summary
    Acknowledgement of debt extends limitation for IBC filings; recovery certificate or decree creates fresh cause of action to initiate CIRP.
    An acknowledgment in writing by a corporate debtor of a subsisting liability restarts the limitation period for initiating CIRP; a final judgment, decree or a recovery certificate, if dues remain unpaid, gives rise to a fresh cause of action permitting a financial creditor to initiate insolvency proceedings within the applicable limitation period measured from the date of that judgment, decree or certificate. Limitation questions are mixed fact and law issues requiring pleaded facts and evidence, and pleadings in an insolvency petition may be amended or supplemented when appropriate.
    Case LawsGST
    An insight into Advance Ruling and the functioning of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling immunity limitation: pending enforcement investigations bar AAR consideration and provide no protection.
    The advance ruling mechanism provides tax certainty for proposed or completed transactions, but is inapplicable where the same question is the subject of enforcement proceedings. An applicant seeking a rate and classification ruling for works for a central housing body was found to have concurrent enforcement enquiries and prior inspection, search and seizure, bringing the case within the statutory proviso that excludes advance ruling consideration; clarification that "proceedings" covers enforcement chapters reinforces that AAR cannot provide immunity from ongoing investigations.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show cause notice issued by Additional Director General-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is not a...
    Show AI Summary
    Proper officer requirement invalidates notices issued by unauthorized DRI officials; statutory authority required for issuance.
    A show cause notice issued by an Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was held not to be issued by a proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962; show cause notices must originate from an authority expressly empowered by statute, rule, notification or other lawful instrument, and notices issued by officers outside the statutory definition of proper officer lack validity and cannot ground further proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Writ Petition cannot be a tool to escape the statutory remedies available under the law-Supreme Cour...
    Show AI Summary
    Writ petition as bypass of statutory remedies is impermissible; statutory remedy under tax law must be pursued first.
    Writ petitions cannot be used to bypass available statutory remedies in tax matters; where a statutory remedy under the GST law exists, a taxpayer must pursue that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction. In the present facts, detention of goods and demand of tax and penalty led to a writ challenge which the High Court entertained on factual grounds, but the superior forum set aside that order and directed pursuit of the statutory remedy, noting the narrow exceptions permitting writ relief were not shown.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment conducted after 4 years by Income Tax Authorities.
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments beyond four years barred where full and true disclosure eliminates omission to disclose material facts.
    Reopening an assessment beyond four years is permissible only if there was an omission to disclose material facts; where the assessee had fully and truly disclosed loan and interest details and the assessing officer merely sought a different view on deduction versus capitalization using the same material, the condition precedent for reopening under the proviso is not met and the notice to reopen cannot be sustained.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Principles of Natural Justice upheld by the Court/s.
    Show AI Summary
    Principles of natural justice require hearing before rejecting an SVLDRS declaration, prompting fresh reconsideration with a speaking order.
    An administrative rejection of an application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 for alleged ineligibility was found to have failed procedural fairness by denying notice and hearing. The court required the Designated Committee to reconsider the declaration after affording the applicant a hearing with prior intimation and to issue a reasoned speaking order reflecting the scheme's remedial purpose.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Liberal interpretation of limitation law by the supreme court in covid-19 phase.
    Show AI Summary
    Extension of limitation period grants a 90-day filing window from March, or the longer balance where applicable.
    Suo motu measures made the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded from computation of limitation and made any balance of limitation available from 01.03.2022; where limitation expired in that window, a 90 day period from 01.03.2022 applies, subject to any longer balance. The exclusion covers arbitration, commercial courts, negotiable instruments and related periods for instituting proceedings, condoning delay and termination timelines.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Examining the legality of confiscation of an Imported car.
    Show AI Summary
    Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation: reassess imported used car value and penalty before absolute confiscation.
    Rejection of the declared transaction value of an imported used car cannot rest solely on a Chartered Engineer report without due consideration of the importer's documentary submissions; where importation was not prohibited and only a policy condition on prior foreign use was breached, the authority must re determine assessable value and consider the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, including reassessment of penalty quantum and incidental charges.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show cause notice non est in the eyes of law for want of jurisdiction of the authority issuing it.
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional validity of show-cause notices: notices by officers lacking statutory authority are invalid and challengeable despite alternate remedies.
    Show-cause notices issued by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who are not proper officers under the statutory scheme suffer from a jurisdictional defect and are non est; where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction an alternate remedy does not preclude challenge, and show-cause notices must have statutory backing and not be used as instruments of harassment.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Case-Laws › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act

      20 August, 2024

      Contents
      Acts
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Print Options

      Comprehensive Analysis of the Judgement on Stay of Tax Demand u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act

      Reported as:

      2024 (3) TMI 773 - DELHI HIGH COURT

      Introduction

      This article provides a detailed analysis of a recent judgment delivered by the High Court concerning the grant of stay of tax demand u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Office Memorandums (OMs) dated February 29, 2016, and July 31, 2017, which provide guidelines for granting stay of demand at the first appeal stage.

      Arguments Presented

      The petitioner, an assessee, challenged the actions of the respondents (tax authorities) who had adjusted the available refunds against the outstanding tax demand for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 without considering the petitioner's application for stay of demand u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act.

      The respondents relied on the CBDT's OM dated July 31, 2017, which stated that a stay of demand could be granted subject to the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand as a "standard rate." The respondents contended that the petitioner was obliged to tender or place evidence of having deposited 20% of the disputed demand before their application for stay could be considered.

      Discussions and Findings of the Court

      Interpretation of the CBDT Office Memorandums

      The Court observed that the CBDT OMs neither prescribed nor mandated the deposit of 15% or 20% of the outstanding demand as a pre-condition for granting stay. The OM dated February 29, 2016, specifically spoke of the Assessing Officer's (AO) discretion to grant stay subject to a deposit at a rate higher or lower than 15%, depending on the facts of a particular case.

      The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 & Ors. Versus M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (7) TMI 1905 - SC Order, which emphasized that the administrative circular (OM) would not operate as a fetter upon the power conferred on a quasi-judicial authority. The Court held that it would be wholly incorrect to view the OM as mandating the deposit of 20%, irrespective of the facts of an individual case.

      Discretion of the Assessing Officer u/s 220(6)

      The Court observed that the discretion vested in the hands of the AO u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act cannot possibly be viewed as being cabined by the terms of the OM. The Court relied on its previous decisions in AVANTHA REALTY LIMITED Versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL DELHI 2 & ANR. - 2024 (4) TMI 162 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Indian National Congress Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central-19 and Ors. - 2024 (3) TMI 669 - DELHI HIGH COURT, which reiterated that the 20% deposit mentioned in the OM is not liable to be viewed as an inviolate or inflexible condition.

      Principles for Granting Stay

      The Court discussed the principles governing the grant of stay pending appellate remedies, as laid down by the Supreme Court in BENARA VALVES LTD. & ORS. Versus CCE & ANR. - 2006 (11) TMI 6 - Supreme Court and Monotosh Saha Versus Special Director, Enforcement Directorate And Anr. - 2008 (8) TMI 9 - Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that while exercising discretion, factors such as prima facie case, undue hardship, and the likelihood of success must be considered.

      The Court also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in ITC. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , CUS. & C. EX., MEERUT-I - 2003 (10) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, which provided a lucid explanation of the legal position concerning pre-deposit and the grant of stay.

      Analysis and Decision by the Court

      The Court held that the respondents had clearly erred in proceeding on the assumption that the application for consideration of outstanding demands being placed in abeyance could not have been entertained without a 20% pre-deposit. The Court found this stand to be thoroughly misconceived and wholly untenable in law.

      The Court observed that the respondents had acted arbitrarily in adjusting the demand for AY 2018-19 against available refunds without attending to the petitioner's application u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, which was pending consideration.

      Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the respondents for considering the petitioner's application u/s 220(6) in accordance with the observations made in the judgment. The issue of the amount of refund liable to be released was directed to abide by the decision that the respondents would take pursuant to the Court's directions.

      Doctrine or Legal Principle Discussed

      The judgment primarily dealt with the interpretation and application of the CBDT Office Memorandums concerning the grant of stay of tax demand u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized the discretionary power vested in the Assessing Officer and the need to consider factors such as prima facie case, undue hardship, and the likelihood of success while exercising this discretion.

      Comprehensive Summary of the Judgment

      The High Court, in this judgment, clarified the interpretation and application of the CBDT Office Memorandums concerning the grant of stay of tax demand u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the Assessing Officer's discretion to grant stay cannot be fettered by the terms of the OM, which merely provide guidelines.

      The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer must consider factors such as prima facie case, undue hardship, and the likelihood of success while exercising discretion u/s 220(6). The Court found that the respondents had erred in assuming that the petitioner's application for stay could not be entertained without a pre-deposit of 20% of the disputed demand, as per the OM.

      The Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts to elucidate the principles governing the grant of stay and the interpretation of the term "undue hardship." The Court remitted the matter to the respondents for considering the petitioner's application u/s 220(6) in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.

       

      Full Text:

      2024 (3) TMI 773 - DELHI HIGH COURT

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔