No coercive step against NDTV on Rs-428 cr I-T demand: HC
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Income Tax department not to take any coercive step against media house New Delhi Television (NDTV) in connection with a Rs 428- crore demand raised by the authority.
A bench of justices S Muralidhar and Pratibha M Singh said it was "satisfied" that there was a prima facie case in favour of NDTV.
The court also issued notice to the IT return department and sought its reply on the television channel's plea challenging the demand order of July 26 and a show cause notice of the same day. The notice was issued for failure to pay the amount in time.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for NDTV, contended that the July 26 order was "without jurisdiction" and based on "piecemeal assessment".
Pulling up the tax authority for issuing the demand order and the notice, the bench noted that the time given for deposit of the amount was 'immediately now' which appeared to be an "over enthusiastic step" and "on the face of it illegal".
"How can you pass penalty order when no time has been given for payment of the amount which was determined on July 26," the court asked the I-T department.....Read Article Source
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the Income Tax department not to take any coercive step against media house New Delhi Television (NDTV) in connection with a Rs 428- crore demand raised by the authority.
A bench of justices S Muralidhar and Pratibha M Singh said it was "satisfied" that there was a prima facie case in favour of NDTV.
The court also issued notice to the IT return department and sought its reply on the television channel's plea challenging the demand order of July 26 and a show cause notice of the same day. The notice was issued for failure to pay the amount in time.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for NDTV, contended that the July 26 order was "without jurisdiction" and based on "piecemeal assessment".
Pulling up the tax authority for issuing the demand order and the notice, the bench noted that the time given for deposit of the amount was 'immediately now' which appeared to be an "over enthusiastic step" and "on the face of it illegal".
"How can you pass penalty order when no time has been given for payment of the amount which was determined on July 26," the court asked the I-T department.....Read Article Source
No comments:
Post a Comment