|
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3639 (Ker-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 220
Tribunal had merely directed the deduction to be granted under section 80P after ascertaining the business income and as left with the order of Single Judge which directed payment of 20% of demand within one month which was an exercise of discretion, no interference in appeal unless there was shown arbitrariness or illegality, therefore, assessee was granted two months' time, if he paid 10% of the amounts by dates as stipulated.
|
Recovery - Stay of demand - Direction to pay 20% of the demand -
Assessee was challenging the interim order passed by Single Judge, wherein the appellant was directed to pay 20% of the demand. Assessee submitted that in similar circumstances this Court issued a judgment permitting a co-operative bank to pay 1% of the demand, for staying the recovery while the first appeal was pending. Authority submitted that there was absolutely no similarity between the facts as disclosed from the Judgment and the present case. Held: Issue dealt with by the statutory authority was not with respect to details of depositors, but with respect to the transferring of provisions and reserves to the P&L account and claiming deduction under section 80P. These are all adjustments made in account which were found to be not proper by AO, in addition to which the relief under section 80P was also declined. Tribunal had merely directed the deduction to be granted under section 80P after ascertaining the business income. As left with order of Single Judge which directed payment of 20% of the demand within one month which was an exercise of discretion, no interference in appeal unless there was shown arbitrariness or illegality. Assessee was granted two months' time, if he paid 10% of amounts by dates as stipulated.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. :
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|