Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by Supreme Court of India

These are the latest case laws decided by Supreme Court of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.


  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
11 months 16 hours ago #6814 by amit
Section - 271(1)(c), 220(6), 275(1)(a)
Order Date - 20-07-2018
Favouring - None
Appellant - PCIT
Citation - 818Taxpundit161
Appeal No. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6850 OF 2018
Asstt. Year - 2007-08



W.P. (C) No. 6778/2017 & C.M. APPL. 28225/2017 (stay)

1. Notice.

2. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 2nd August, 2017 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) by which the Petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the tax demand of Rs. 32 crores amounting to Rs. 6.4 crores by 11th August, 2017 in order to get a stay of the demand up to 15th December, 2017 pending consideration of the Petitioner’s appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] against the order dated 30th June, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 15(1) (hereafter Assessing Officer - AO), levying a penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). By the said order the AO raised a demand of Rs. 32,00,07,958 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08 and directed the Petitioner to deposit the said amount on or before 31st July, 2017.

4. The Petitioner-Assessee filed an appeal against the order before the CIT (A). The Petitioner also filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Act seeking stay of the recovery proceedings. In the said application for stay, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) directed the Petitioner, by order dated 20th July 2017, to deposit 15% of the total tax demand in terms of the Office Memorandum (‘OM’) dated 29th February, 2016.

5. The contention of the Petitioner is that the limitation period, in terms of Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act, had already expired. Aggrieved by the above order dated 20th July, 2017, the Petitioner went before the PCIT who, by the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2017, disposed of the application of the Petitioner by the following order sheet entry. “Present Sh. Vishal Rastogi, AGM of LG requested to make payment of 20% of the tax demand of 32Cr. Amounting to 6.4 Cr. by 11.08.2017 to get stay of demand upto 15.12.2017”

6. Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has produced before this Court a copy of OM dated 31st July, 2017 which modifies the earlier OM, dated 29th February, 2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’), stating that standard rate for grant of stay had been revised from 15% to 20% of the disputed demand.

7. The impugned order clearly makes no reference to the central issue in the pending appeal or the grievance of the Petitioner regarding the order passed
by the AO. The impugned order in short is without reasons and is therefore
unsustainable in law.

8. For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued that the Petitioner’s application will once again be heard by the PCIT on merits and without reference to the OM dated 31st July, 2017, which, on the face of it, appears to curtail his discretion. The PCIT will dispose of the application with a reasoned order not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

9. The CIT (A) shall also consider the request of the Petitioner for an expeditious disposal of the appeal.

10. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in the above terms.

11. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of PCIT vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Unable to display Google Map.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.091 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

AA 226 Modakurichi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society vs ITO

AA 226 Modakurichi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society vs ITO

AA 226 Modakurichi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society vs ITO Read More
Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ITO

Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ITO

Tata Teleservices Ltd. vs. ITO Read More
CIT vs. S L Lumax Ltd

CIT vs. S L Lumax Ltd

CIT vs. S L Lumax Ltd Read More
Ramupillai Kuppuraj vs ITO

Ramupillai Kuppuraj vs ITO

Ramupillai Kuppuraj vs ITO Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles



All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.


Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar