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: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: form 3cd :: empanelment
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

M/s. Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd.Mondelez House, Unit No. 2001 20th Floor, Tower-3 Parel, Mumbai 400013 Vs. Addl. CIT, Range 5(1)Mumbai
March, 23rd 2015
                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                           "K" Bench, Mumbai

                 Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member
                 and Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member

                             SA No. 104/Mum/2015
                    (Arising out of ITA No. 1492/Mum/2015)
                           (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

     M/s. Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd.             Addl. CIT, Range 5(1)
     (Formerly Cadbury India Ltd.)                 Mumbai
     Mondelez House, Unit No. 2001
     20th Floor, Tower-3 (Wing C)       Vs.
     India Bulls Finance Centre
     Parel, Mumbai 400013
                           PAN ­ AAACC04060H
                   Applicant                            Respondent

                     Applicant by:    Shri Nishant Thakkar
                     Respondent by:   Shri Vijay Kumar Bora

                     Date of Hearing:       20.03.2015
                     Date of Pronouncement: 20.03.2015

                                     ORDER

Per N.K. Billaiya, A.M.

     This stay application by the assessee is for stay of demand for A.Y.
2010-2011.




2.    Learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that all the issued
involved in the year under consideration are identical to the issues involved in
earlier year. Therefore, for similar reasons the demand must be stayed.

3.    Per contra, the learned D.R. stated that like in the earlier year the
assessee must be directed to pay at least 50% of the demand.

4.    Having heard the rival submissions we have carefully gone through
the record and evidences brought before us. We find that the issues involved
in the appeal under consideration are identical to the issues involved for
A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10. In A.Y. 2009-10, vide our order in SA No.
103/Mum/2015, we have pointed out how the AO has recovered `23.52
                                           2                    SA No. 104/Mum/2015
                                                       M/s. Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd.





crores by attaching the bank account of the assessee in gross violation of
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In our
considered opinion the amount, which has been unlawfully siphoned by the
Revenue Authorities, should be treated as tax paid against the demand for
A.Y. 2010-11. With these directions the demand for the year under
consideration is stayed for a period of six months or till the disposal of the
appeal, whichever is earlier. The appeal is posted for hearing on 05.05.2015.
Since both the parties are aware of the date of hearing, no notice shall be
issued.

5.        In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2015.

                    Sd/-                                      Sd/-
               (Vijay Pal Rao)                           (N.K. Billaiya)
              Judicial Member                         Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 20th March, 2015

Copy to:

     1.   The Appellant
     2.   The Respondent
     3.   DRP-I, Mumbai
     4.   The CIT/DIT concerned
     5.   The DR, "K" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
                                                          By Order

//True Copy//
                                                       Assistant Registrar
                                               ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Company Overview

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