Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Toshiba Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Tax)-3, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge to tax orders (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondent's argument on tax evasion (Para 5) |
| 3. court's stance on stay deposit conditions (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. remand for fresh adjudication (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 14th March, 2022, 10th March, 2022, 11th February, 2022 and 28th January, 2022 directing the Petitioner to deposit twenty percent of outstanding demand. Petitioner also seeks stay of recovery proceedings arising out of the order dated 12th November, 2021 passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and notice of demand dated 12th November, 2021 issued under Section 156 of the Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the Financial Year 2015-16, the Petitioner purchased 12,70,276 unlisted equity shares of UEM India Private Limited (Now known as Toshiba Water Solutions Private Limited) from non-residents (tax residents of USA) and deducted TDS @ 10% as well as applicable surcharge and cess while remitting sale consideration of Rs.31,51,80,881/-. He states that proceedings were initiated u
The requirement to deposit twenty percent of disputed tax demand for stay pending appeal is not absolute and can be relaxed based on case specifics.
The court emphasized the relaxation of the requirement of payment of twenty percent of disputed tax demand in appropriate cases and the necessity for considering the prima facie case, balance of conv....
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 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.
Authorities must provide reasoned decisions when rejecting stay applications and consider claims of financial hardship, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
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....
Tax authorities must follow established procedures when collecting disputed amounts, ensuring fairness and adherence to guidelines for stay of demands pending appeal decisions.
A taxpayer challenging a tax deposit order must demonstrate financial hardship to satisfy the irreparable injury criterion, which was not met in this case.
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
