Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
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: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: form 3cd :: TDS :: empanelment
 
 
From the Courts »
 M/s Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Del Vs. Mrs. Tara Sinha
 Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3 Vs. Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd.
 CIT vs. D. K. Garg (Delhi High Court)
 The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court)
 Digipro Import & Export Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
  CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (Supreme Court)
  DCIT vs. Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
 GTC Industries Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) (Special Bench)
 Premlata Purshottam Paldiwal vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

Royal Canin India Pvt.Ltd, 12A Nichani House, Juhu Tara Road, Santacrius (W), Mumbai-400049 Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 11(10(1), Mumbai
August, 31st 2015
                  ,   "                         " 
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " K" BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE HON'BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM)
  ,                                            ..,  

                     Stay Application No.229/Mum/2015
         arising out of   ./I.T.A . No .10 53 /M um /20 15
                 (   / As ses sm e nt Ye a r :2 010 -11 )
 Royal Canin India Pvt.Ltd, / Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
 12A Nichani House,                 11(10(1),
                            Vs.
 Juhu Tara Road,                    Mumbai
 Santacrius (W),
 Mumbai-400049
       ( /Appellant)        ..      ( / Respondent)

        ./   ./PA N :AADC R44 17J

            / Applicant by               S S C Tiwari
            /Respondent by               Shri Somanath S Ukkali


            / Date of Hearing
                                             : 28.8.2015
           /Date of Pronouncement: 28.8.2015

                                / O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM)

       The assessee has filed this stay application seeking the extension of
stay granted by the Tribunal by its order dated 27.2.2015 passed in SA
No.49/Mum/2015 whereby the assessee was granted stay of collection of
outstanding demand for a period of six months or till the date of disposal
of the appeal which ever period expires earlier , subjected to the payment
of Rs.30 lakhs. Te appeal was also posted for hearing on 23.4.2015 on
out of turn basis.





2.     The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the
assessee has duly complied with the stay order referred above by paying a
sum of Rs.30 lakhs on 23.3.2015 towards outstanding demand. The ld.
                                      2                   S A N o .2 2 9 / Mu m /2 0 1 5



Counsel submitted that the assessee could not represent the appeal on
23.4.2015, since the Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee was busy in
the High Court.    Accordingly, the assessee sought adjournme nt on that
date. However, the department sought adjournment on subsequent dates
of hearing held on 17.6.2015 and 24.8.2015.        Accordingly, the ld.            AR
submitted that the delay in disposing of the appeal has occurred due to
the reasons beyond the control of the assessee and accordingly he prayed
that the stay may kindly be extended.


3.     On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the appeal was
adjourned on one occasion at the instance of the assessee and accordingly
objected to the stay petition filed by the assessee. In the alternative, the
ld.   DR submitted that the outstanding demand as on today is about
Rs.1.39 crores and the assessee should be asked to pay some more
amount of tax.


4.     In the rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has already
complied with the direction given by the Tribunal by paying a sum of
Rs.30 lakhs.     He further submitted that the Tribunal heard the matter at
length on 24.8.2015, but the appeal had to be adjourned at the request of
the ld. DR. He further submitted that the assessee has got fair chance of
winning the appeal.


5.     Having heard the rival contentions, we are of the view that the
assessee should be asked to pay some more amount to protect the
interest of Revenue, since the assessee has sought adjournment on one
occasion. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to pay the sum of R upees
Ten lakhs on or before 15.9.2015. Subject to the payment of Rs.10 lakhs,
referred above, we stay the collection of outstanding demand for a period
of six months from the date of this order or till the date of disposal of the
                                      3                   S A N o .2 2 9 / Mu m /2 0 1 5



appeal, whichever period expires earlier.      It is made clear that the
assessee should not seek adjournment on the date of hearing without a
reasonable cause, failing which this stay order shall be subject to review
by the Division Bench hearing the appeal.





6.     We notice that the appeal has been posted for hearing on
6.10.2015.      Accordingly, we direct the assessee to be present on that
without fail.


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


                Pronounced accordingly on 28th August, 2015.
                      28th August, 2015    

           Sd                                        sd
(  /JOGINDER SINGH )                      ( .. ,/ B.R. BASKARAN )
  / Judicial Member                        / Accountant Member

  Mumbai: 28th August, 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)
                                              ,  /ITA T, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

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