{"id":8098,"date":"2014-06-27T19:18:42","date_gmt":"2014-06-27T13:48:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=8098"},"modified":"2014-06-27T19:18:42","modified_gmt":"2014-06-27T13:48:42","slug":"rw-promotions-pvt-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-s-2542-pendency-of-an-appeal-filed-in-the-high-court-us-260a-bars-the-hearing-of-a-ma-filed-us-2542-even-if-the-appeal-is-not-admitted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/rw-promotions-pvt-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-s-2542-pendency-of-an-appeal-filed-in-the-high-court-us-260a-bars-the-hearing-of-a-ma-filed-us-2542-even-if-the-appeal-is-not-admitted\/","title":{"rendered":"RW Promotions Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1282\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=1282&varname2=MA_Maintainability_Appeal.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (MA_Maintainability_Appeal.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong>S. 254(2): Pendency of an appeal filed in the High Court u\/s 260A bars the hearing of a MA filed u\/s 254(2) even if the appeal is not admitted<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>The assessee has moved an instant Miscellaneous Application (MA) against the order of the !TAT. At the time of hearing, the AR for the assessee-appellant informed that the assessee has filed an appeal u\/s 260A before the Hon&#8217;ble Bombay High Court, but is yet to be admitted. Since the appeal has been filed before the Hon&#8217;ble Bombay High Court, the judicial propriety does not allow the assessee to seek efficacious remedy simultaneously before two authorities and in particular where the issue is seized by a higher judicial forum, even if pending admission. On this ground, the instant MA is rejected.<\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\"><strong>Note<\/strong>: This view is wrong in view of the Bombay High Court rulings in <strong>Novartis<\/strong> &#038; <strong>Accra Investments<\/strong> where it was clarified that the pendency of an appeal filed u\/s 260A does not bar the hearing of a MA filed u\/s 254(2). The view in <strong>Tata Communications<\/strong> 121 ITD 384 (Mum) (SB) (<em>which barred MAs only if the appeal is admitted by the High Court<\/em>) requires reconsideration. The entire law has been thoroughly discussed in <strong>Coca Cola<\/strong> (ITAT Pune) (<em>the unreported orders are attached to the file<\/em>) <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong>S. 254(2): Pendency of an appeal filed in the High Court u\/s 260A bars the hearing of a MA filed u\/s 254(2) even if the appeal is not admitted<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>The assessee has moved an instant Miscellaneous Application (MA) against the order of the !TAT. At the time of hearing, the AR for the assessee-appellant informed that the assessee has filed an appeal u\/s 260A before the Hon&#8217;ble Bombay High Court, but is yet to be admitted. Since the appeal has been filed before the Hon&#8217;ble Bombay High Court, the judicial propriety does not allow the assessee to seek efficacious remedy simultaneously before two authorities and in particular where the issue is seized by a higher judicial forum, even if pending admission. On this ground, the instant MA is rejected<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/rw-promotions-pvt-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-s-2542-pendency-of-an-appeal-filed-in-the-high-court-us-260a-bars-the-hearing-of-a-ma-filed-us-2542-even-if-the-appeal-is-not-admitted\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8098","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8098","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8098\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}