COURT: | Bombay High Court |
CORAM: | A. K. Menon J., M. S. Sanklecha J |
SECTION(S): | 220(6) |
GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
CATCH WORDS: | stay of demand |
COUNSEL: | Mihir Naniwadekar |
DATE: | March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) |
DATE: | April 15, 2016 (Date of publication) |
AY: | 2007-08 to 2012-13 |
FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
CITATION: | |
S. 220(6): An order disposing off a stay application has to objectively consider the prima facie case on merits, financial hardship and balance of convenience and give reasons for the rejection |
We find that neither the Assessing Officer in the impugned orders dated 13th October, 2015 nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in the order dated 25.2.2016 has dealt with the Petitioner’s primary contentions that the amounts received as lease premium and shown as deposits, cannot be taxed as income. This Court has time again set out parameters to be kept in mind while considering the stay application under Section 220(6) of the Act. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has completely misunderstood the scope of her powers and issues to be considered while disposing of the stay applications. In the above view, we set aside the orders dated 13th October, 2015 of the Assessing Officer and order dated 25th February, 2016… However, the Petitioner’s stay application is restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for fresh disposal in accordance with law and after considering, prima facie, merits of the Petitioner’s case and in accordance with law
Recent Comments