The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ii, Pune v. Ptc Software (I) Private Likmited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1927 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, Pune..Appellant. Versus PTC Software (I) Private Likmited ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.Atul K Jasani with Mr.P.C. Tripathi for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 28[th] February 2013 P.C. : Office objections waived. 2.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07, following questions of law have been formulated for our consideration. “a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in extending the stay beyond a period of 365 days, contravening the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?did not err in extending the stay beyond a period of 365 days, contravening the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in not appreciating that the intention behind the amendment to Section 254(2A) is to limit the maximum period of stay which can be granted by the Tribunal to 365 days, by virtue of which the Tribunal has no power to grant stay beyond a period did not err in not appreciating that the intention behind the amendment to Section 254(2A) is to limit the maximum period of stay which can be granted by the Tribunal to 365 days, by virtue of which the Tribunal has no power to grant stay beyond a period of 365 days ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in relying on the decision of Tata Communications Limited, 295 ITR 22 following the decision of this Court in the case of Ronak Industries Limited 333 ITR 99 which has been decided following the decision of Narang Overseas P Limited, 295 ITR 22 (Bombay), wherein the 2008 amendment to the provisions of Section 254(2A) has not been considered as the order was delivered on 30-7-2007 i.e. much before the amendment ?” 3.The Tribunal has extended the period of stay following the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Ronuk Industries Limited reported in (2011) 333 ITR 99 (Bom). In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)