Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

At the outset, it may be mentioned that petitioner has already paid Rs. 1,11,50,905.00 as part of the outstanding dues, ofcourse without prejudice to its rights and contentions. 13. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice if the first appellate authority hears the appeal filed by the petitioner and decides the same in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of the order.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sections 220, 226 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Stay of demand — Petitioner is a company assessed to income tax . the Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 28th December, 2019 in respect of the petitioner for the assessment year 2014-15 under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Assesseewas engaged in the business of providing platform for online and mobile games. In the assessment order held that petitioner had failed to bring on record the compliance of tax deducted at source under Section 194B of the Act and therefore applied the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added 30% of winning payout towards winning from winning from lottery or crossword puzzles and non- deduction of TDS,  to the total income of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This was followed by issuance of notice of demand of even date under Section 156 of the Act calling upon the petitioner and the tax due for the assessment year 2014-15. petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).  Simultaneously, petitioner also filed an application before respondent No.1 on 23rd January, 2020 seeking stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Act. By order dated 12th February, 2020, respondent No.1 rejected the application for stay of demand, granting liberty to the petitioner to pay 20% of the total demand within 3 days in which event it was stated that the outstanding demand would be stayed. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred further stay petition, Court held that  it would be in the interest of justice if the first appellate authority hears the appeal filed by the petitioner and decides the same in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of the order. Ordered accordingly,till decision is rendered on the appeal of the petitioner by the first appellate authority within the period specified, there shall be stay of the demand notice issued pursuant to the assessment order dated 28th December 2019. --- PLAY GAMES 24 X 7 PRIVATE LIMITED. vs. Asstt. CIT.[2020] 23 ITCD Online 14 (BOM)