Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD
 
 
From the Courts »
 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd.
 Akum Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited Through: Director Shri. Sanjeev Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns „n? Petals
 Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd (Delhi High Court)
  State Of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal (Supreme Court)
 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi
 Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Vishwa Hindu Parishad
 ITAT Proposes Important Changes To Tribunal Rules
 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

CIT vs. Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd (Bombay High Court)
January, 23rd 2016

S. 254(2A): As the Third Proviso which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond 365 days “even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” has been struck down in Pepsi Foods 376 ITR 87 (Del) as being arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, the law laid down in Narang Overseas 295 ITR 22 (Bom) & Ronuk Industries 333 ITR 99 (Bom) that the ITAT has power to grant stay beyond 365 days has to be followed

The Department filed an appeal in which it contended that the judgements of the Bombay High Court in Narang Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. ITAT, (2007) 295 ITR 22 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ronuk Industries Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 99(Bom) with regard to the power of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days u/s 245(2A) of the Act is not good law in view of the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:

(i) The Court has consistently taken a view that the Tribunal has power to extend the stay even after the substituted third proviso to subsection 2A to Section 254 of the Act was introduced. This is evident from all the orders in Ingram Micro (India) Exports Pte.Ltd (Income Tax Appeal (L) No.137 of 2013 rendered on 6 March 2013), Director of Income Tax (IT) Vs. M/s. St.Jude Medical Inc (Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2121 of 2012 rendered on 1 March 2013), The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune Vs. PTC Software (I) Private Limited (Tax Appeal (L) No.1927 of 2012 rendered on 28 February 2013). The Revenue has not filed appeal against the above orders of this Court in the context of the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. Nothing has been shown to us as to why when the Revenue has accepted the above orders, a different stand is taken in this appeal.

(ii) In any case the ratio of the decision of this Court in “Narang Overseas (P) Ltd.” (supra) would apply even to the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. The basis of the decision in “Narang Overseas (P) Ltd.” (supra) was that the power to grant stay or interim relief has to be read as coextensive with the power to grant final relief. The object being that in the absence of the power to grant interim relief the final relief itself may be defeated. This Court thereafter followed the decision of the Apex Court in “CCE vs. Kumar Cotton Mills(P) Ltd., (2005(180) ELT 434 (SC)) and held that notwithstanding the pre-substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act the Tribunal continues to have powers to grant interim relief. In the above view, therefore, the ratio of the decision in “Narang Overseas (P) Ltd.” (supra) would apply even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act.

(iii) It may be pointed out that the only substantial difference in the pre-substituted third proviso and substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act is the addition of the words “even if delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” These additional words added in the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act has been struck down by the Delhi High Court in “Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (232 Taxmann 78.)”.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
E-catalogue online catalogue E-brochure online brochure online product catalogue online product catalogue e-catalogue Indi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions