Records 1 – 20 of 43 cbdt circular no stay demand instruction, Income Tax, Goods and services Tax, GST, Service Tax, Central Excise, Custom, Wealth Tax. Circular dated 29 Feb held not to supersede earlier Instruction dated 02 Feb in toto, but to only partially modify guidelines. August CBDT partially modifies instruction no. of for stay of demand and increases the payment requirement from 15% to 20%.
|Published (Last):||14 September 2015|
|PDF File Size:||16.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As per Clause 2 B of the instructionthe stay petitions It is at this point of time, Mr. Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned inxtruction counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that if each of the petitioner is In view of the Instructionthe assessing officer has got ample power and as 19914 has completely overlooked the same, this Court is inclined to stay the impugned orders.
However, this very instructionas pointed out by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has once again been considered by the Division Bench of this court in Soul Jolly handed over a copy of the said instruction. The relevant portion of the said instruction reads as under: A few illustrative instguction where stay could be granted are: Relying upon the said Instruction No.
Officer has not used his instruxtion. We have also examined the decision of this court in the case of Soul v. Many assessees are taking the plea that Instruction No. Many assesses are taking the intsruction that Instruction No.
Instructions on the issue also ceased to exist the day Instruction number came into operation i. The Instruction number holds the field currently and a copy of Instruction number According – 7 – to the learned counsel, the petitioner-Bank clearly falls within the first illustration, namely if the demand in dispute relates to issues that have Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused The issue with regard to instruvtion the amount to be deposited, and the power to stay the demand for depositing, was dealt with by the Circular Instruction No.
Jolly submitted that all previous instructions stood Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that although Instruction No. It may be true that CBDT nistruction issued certain instructions on In my view these instructions and directives can be a The instructions cannot take away the discretionary power of the Assessing Officer and the purport of issuing such instruction is Respondent-State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit seeking to justify their There is remedy of appeal under Section 60 of the Act of against the order of the Certificate Officer.
In the presence of alternative appellate remedy provided under It is also not in dispute that in view of the modified Boards Instruction No. Inviting the attention of this Court to Instruction No. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Flipkart India Private Limited, referred – Learned Knstruction Counsel Sri.
Seshachala appearing for the petitioner-assessee submitted that instrkction parameters set out in the Circular No.
A In a case where the outstanding demand is disputed The respondents failed to appreciate Instruction Number 96, dated Request of applicant in case of high pitched Assessment is also supported by instruction No. It was held by the Honble Delhi High In order to streamline the process of grant of stay and standardize He further submits that as per Instruction No.
Relying on the averments in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit Mr. Mohapatra submitted that in instruction No. But there is no policy for the eradication fbdt castes. As the Preamble goes, the people of India in giving to Our algorithms sense that you may get better results by trying out the same excerpt in our CaseIQ TM interface. No Case or Topic can be added. You have reach your max limit. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature. Calcutta High Court Madras High Court Supreme Court Of India Allahabad High Court Delhi High Court Bombay High Court Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Knstruction High Court Karnataka High Court Gauhati High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Central Administrative Tribunal 9.
Jharkhand High Court 9. Madhya Pradesh High Court 9.
Gujarat High Court 8. Kerala High Court 8. Orissa High Court 7. Rajasthan High Court 6.
CBDT directs stay of demand upon payment of 15% disputed tax, pending CIT(A) appeal | Taxsutra
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 4. Himachal Pradesh High Court 4. Jammu and Kashmir High Court 3. Central Information Commission 2. Chhattisgarh High Court 2. Armed Forces Tribunal 1. Indtruction Electricity Regulatory Commission 1. Manipur High Court 1. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1. Appellate Tribunal For Electricity 0. Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange 0. Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property 0.
Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property1 0. Assam High Court 0.
Authority For Advance Rulings 0. Board For Industrial Financial Reconstruction 0. Board Of Revenue, Allahabad 0. Board Of Revenue, Uttarakhand 0. Company Law Board 0. Competition Appellate Tribunal 0. Competition Commission Of India 0. Consumer Disputes Redressal 0. Cyber Appellate Tribunal 0.
CBDT Modifies Guidelines For Stay Of Demand By The AO
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal 0. Debts Recovery Tribunal 0. Dhaka High Inztruction 0. First Appellate Authority 0. Intellectual Property Appellate Board 0. Meghalaya High Court 0. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission 0. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal 0. National Company Law Tribunal 0. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 0. National Green Tribunal 0.