Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Prl Developers Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 28 February, 2020

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Milind N. Jadhav

                                                                                        3. os wpl 657-20.doc

R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                           O.O.C.J.

                                    WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 657 OF 2020


                      PRL Developers Pvt Ltd                                   ..   Petitioner

                                 Versus
                      Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(3)(2), Mumbai
                      & Ors.                                                   ..   Respondents

                                                 ...................
                       Mr. J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Madhur Agarwal & Mr.
                        Upendra Lokegaonkar i/by Mint & Confreres for the Petitioner
                       Mr. N.C. Mohanty for the Respondents
                                                        ...................

                                               CORAM         : UJJAL BHUYAN &
                                                                 MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
                                               DATE         :    FEBRUARY 28, 2020.

                      P.C.:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 24.2.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7(3), Mumbai rejecting the application for stay of recovery of demand filed by the petitioner while upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

1 of 2

3. os wpl 657-20.doc

3. We have heard Mr. Mistri, learned senior counsel who has taken us through the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 as well as the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has also placed before the Court a decision of this Court in case of Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 in support of the contention that it is not open to the Assessing Officer to change the method of valuation of shares opted for by the assessee which in this case was the discounted cash flow (DCF) method as per Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the respondents prays for two weeks' time to file reply.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, it is hereby directed that there shall be stay of recovery of demand pursuant to the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17.

6. S.O to 13th March, 2020.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] 1 [2018] 256 Taxman 240 (Bombay) Digitally signed 2 of 2 Ravindra by Ravindra M. Amberkar M. Date:

Amberkar 2020.03.02 15:19:17 +0530