Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
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) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES
From the Courts »
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 Vs. Pavitra Commercial Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi Iv Vs. Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
 Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Vs. Nokia Solutions & Network India Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As, Nokia Siemens Network Pvt Ltd)
 SKY Light Hospitality Llp Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -28(1), New Delhi
 Tax outgo may rise for investors in companies undergoing M&A cases
 Rajat B Mehta vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
 Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
  Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation (Bombay High Court)
 Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
  Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

Airport Retail Private Limited, 11, Venus Apartment, Opp, Joggers Park, Chikuwadi, Boriwali (W), Mumbai-400092 Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), circle 8(1), Mumbai
July, 21st 2015
                    ,   "                      " 

       .. ,       ,                                    

                              SA No.200/Mum/2015
                    Arising out of ITA. No. 1762/Mum/2014
                  (   / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

 Airport Retail Private Limited,      /        Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
 11, Venus Apartment,                 Vs.      (OSD), circle 8(1),
 Opp, Joggers Park,                            Mumbai
 Boriwali (W),
        ( /Appellant)                 ..       (    / Respondent)

           . /   . / PAN/GIRNo.:AAFCA9796H

            / Appellant by                 :   Shri Alisager Rampurwala
              /Respondent by :                 Shri S T Bidari

              / Date of Hearing
                                                   : 17.7.2015
             /Date of Pronouncement : 17.7.2015

                                     / O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:

       The assessee has moved this Stay Application seeking extension of
the stay of outstanding demand of Rs.64,63,934/- raised by the AO for
assessment year 2006-07.

2.     The Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the
Tribunal granted stay of collection of outstanding, vide its order dated 19-
12-2014, subject to the payment of a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs on or before
31.01.2015. He submitted that the assessee has duly paid the above said
sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 22.01.2015 and he also brought to our attention
to the copy of payment challan placed as page 22 of the appeal papers.
                                     2                        SA No.200/Mum/2015

He submitted that the appeal was posted for hearing by the Tribunal on
26.02.2015 in its order referred above.

3.   The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld D.R, on 26.02.2015, wanted the
bench to club the appeal with the appeal of the assessee pertaining to
earlier year and accordingly, the bench adjourned the matter to
15.04.2015. However, on the date of hearing on 15.04.2015, the Ld D.R
sought adjournment and hence the appeal was adjourned to 09.6.2015.
On that date, the appeal could not be heard for want of time and hence
the same was adjourned to 07.10.2015. Thus narrating the events, the Ld
A.R submitted that the assessee was not responsible for not completing
the appeals and further the stay granted by the Tribunal has already
expired. Accordingly, the ld A.R prayed that the stay already granted may
kindly be extended.

4.    The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee may be
asked to remit a portion of outstanding tax demand.

5.    We heard the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal, vide its
order dated 19.12.2014, has already granted stay to the assessee subject
to the payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs and the said amount has already been
paid by the assessee.     In the present petition, the assessee is seeking
extension of the stay, since the appeal could not be completed for the
reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Hence, at this juncture, it
may not be proper to review the earlier stay order passed by the Tribunal,
since there is no fault on the part of the assessee. Hence, we are of the
view that the present petition filed by the assessee deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, we direct the revenue not to collect the outstanding demand
for a period of six months from the date of this order or till the date of
disposal of appeal, whichever period expires earlier.
                                      3                         SA No.200/Mum/2015

6.    We also direct the assessee not to seek adjournment without
reasonable cause, failing which the present stay order shall be subjected
to review by the division bench hearing the appeal.

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

      The above order was pronounced in the open court on 17.7.2015.

      Sd                                            sd

(   / SANJAY GARG)                         (..  ,/ B.R. BASKARAN)
    /Judicial Member                           /Accountant Member
  Mumbai: 17.7.2015.

. ../ SRL , Sr. PS

        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.  / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4.      / CIT concerned
5.      ,     ,                   /
     DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.     / Guard file.
                                                           / BY ORDER,

             True copy
                                                  (Asstt. Registrar)
                                      ,  /ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multimedia Presentations Multimedia Solutions 3D Solutions Corporate Presentations Business Presentations Multimedia Presentation India M

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