M/S Models Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
10 Oct 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcbgoa
Parties
M/S Models Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
10 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S Models Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2016INTAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2016
M/S MODELS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
... Applicant
... Respondent
Mr. Aurobindo Gomes Pereira, Advocate for the Applicant.Ms. Asha A. Desai, Advocate for the Respondent.
-Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:10th October, 2016
P.C.
Heard Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants
and Ms. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
2. This is an application to stay the operation of the impugned
demand by the Respondent-Revenue. It is not disputed that in termsof the circular dated 29.02.2016, to entertain an Appeal challengingsuch demand, atleast the minimum of fifteen percent of the amount inquestion has to be deposited.
3. In such circumstances, though the learned Counsel appearing forthe Applicants states that the Applicant has a good case on merits andthat the Appicant has deposited a substantial amount before the
authorities when the demand in question was under challenge beforethe authorities below, nevertheless, it will not be possible for thisCourt at this stage to ascertain the correct amount to be deposited.
4. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.01.2016 is
stayed subject to the Applicants' depositing a total amount of fifteenpercent of the demand in question to the satisfaction of the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax within two weeks from today.
5. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for theApplicants that he has already deposited such amount. The PrincipalCommissioner to examine such aspect whilst complying with theabove directions.
6. Application stands disposed of accordingly.
NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.F. M. REIS, J.
arp/*
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.