Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Sahney Kirkwood vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

Sahney Kirkwood vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (sahney_appeal_stay_demand.pdf)

High Court has power to grant stay of demand in s. 260A appeal

Where the question arose whether in respect of an appeal admitted u/s 260A, the High Court has power to grant stay of recovery of outstanding demand, HELD:

(i) S. 260A provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals to the High Court shall apply;

(ii) Rules 5 (1) and 5 (3) of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorize the Court to grant stay provided it is satisfied:

(a) that substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the order is made;

(b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and

(c) that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.

(iii) On facts, as these conditions were satisfied, the assessee was entitled to stay subject to conditions.

Related Posts:

  • NuPower Renewables Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The reasons do not specify that the information supplied to the Assessing Officer by the Investigation Wing, suggested that such investment was non­ genuine. In this context, Assessing Officer refers to the requirement of verifying the genuineness of investor and requirement of further investigation. These observations would not further the…
  • Usha Exports vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The reasons also refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s.N.K.Proteins Ltd. (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT v. DCIT ). Even this decision was before the Assessing Officer in the proceeding pursuant to first reopening notice. The Petitioner, along with its objections, placed explanatory note as to how the…
  • HDFC Bank Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) We cannot, and the law does not permit us, to hold that HDFC Ltd. is the beneficial owner of 22.64% of the shares in the Petitioner by clubbing the share holding of HDFC Investments Ltd. with the shareholding of HDFC Ltd. If we were to do this, we would be…
  • Dulraj U. Jain vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) Further, the reasons also do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned…
  • Bhavya Construction Co vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The basic grievance of the Appellant is that the impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. This for two reasons, one the decisions relied upon by the Tribunal of its own (not cited at the bar) in the impugned order were not…
  • Anand Developers vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) The decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd in fact, assists the case of the Petitioner rather than the Respondents. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all primary relevant facts and once all primary facts…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court) 

    High Court deprectaes the practice of the department in mechnaically filing frivolous appeals. Observes that it causes inconvenience and wastes the time of the Court and results in sidelining of important issues. It accordingly imposes costs of Rs. 10,000 on … CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court)…
  2. CIT vs. Lazor Syntex & CIT vs. Akshay Textiles Trading (Bombay High Court) 

    In McDowell 154 ITR 148, the Court nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the tax payer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected to in the future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a…
  3. Vodafone International vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    Where the assessee, Vodafone, a Dutch company, purchased shares of a Cayman Company (which in turn held shares of an Indian company ‘Hutch Essar’) from another foreign company (HTIL) and the AO issued a notice asking the assessee why it should not be treated as an assessee in default…
  4. CIT vs. S. K. Katyal (Delhi High Court) 

    HELD in the context of s. 158BE (1) (b) which imposes a time limit for making a block assessment order with reference to the date of execution of the last of the authorizations for search u/s 132 which in turn is deemed to be the date of the conclusion…
  5. CIT vs. Reliance Utilities (Bombay High Court) 

    Where an assessee has his own funds as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that the advances for non-business purposes have been made out of the own funds and that the borrowed funds have not been used for this purpose. Accordingly, the disallowance of the interest…