Back
MANMOHAN, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
B. L. KAPUR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) DELHI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
C.M. APPL. No. 50982/2022 (for exemption) in W.P. (C) No. 16287/2022
C.M. APPL. No. 50984/2022 (for exemption) in W.P. (C) No. 16288/2022
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the present applications are disposed of.
W.P. (C) No. 16287/2022 and C.M. APPL. No. 50981/2022
W.P. (C) No. 16288/2022 and C.M. APPL. No. 50983/2022
1. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 06th September, 2022 and 07th November, 2022, rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner and directing the petitioner to make payment to the extent of 20% of total tax demand arising under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No. 2 passed orders dated 30th March, 2021 under Section 201(1) / 201(1A) of the Act holding the petitioner to be an ‘assessee-in-default’ for short deduction of tax at source and total tax liability was computed at Rs. 16,47,35,035/- and Rs. 20,09,39,099/- for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. He states that aggrieved by the orders dated 30th March, 2021, the petition
It is open to tax authorities, on facts of individual cases, to grant stay against recovery of demand on deposit of a lesser amount than 20 per cent of disputed demand, pending disposal of appeal.
Mandatory payment of 20% of disputed tax under Section 201(1) can be relaxed based on case specifics, and non-reasoned administrative orders violate principles of procedural fairness.
The requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending first appeal in all cases. The tax authorities are eligib....
Tax authorities must provide reasoned decisions considering principles like prima facie case and balance of convenience, and can relax mandatory deposit requirements in certain cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending ....
Tax authorities have discretion to grant stay on demand lesser than twenty percent, requiring consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The requirement for 20% payment of a disputed tax demand for stay can be relaxed based on the circumstances of the case, as clarified by applicable legal precedents.
The Assessing Officer shall normally grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, and the respondent is entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing officer must grant stay of demand till disposal of the first appeal on payment of 20% of the disputed demand, unless specific re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
