M/S RAMGAD MINERALS AND MINING LIMITED,HOSPET V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

SA 160/BANG/2025

AI Insights

M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Ltd. filed a stay petition under section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking relief from the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which amounted to Rs. 17,01,34,053.00. The assessee argued that they had already paid Rs. 4,94,00,000.00, constituting more than 20% of the total demand. The case presented several merit-based arguments, including previous favorable Tribunal decisions and issues of double taxation and disallowances under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. The Departmental Representative opposed the stay but acknowledged the significant payment made by the assessee. The Tribunal, considering the financial stringency and the merits of the case, decided in favor of the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826819 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N BALUSAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A No.160/Bang/2025 (In ITA No.1439/Bang/2025) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Ltd., 1, Baldota Enclave, Abheraj Baldota Road, Hospet, Bellary – 583 203. PAN – AAACR 8532 R Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Gulbarga. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta , CA Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT Date of hearing : 09.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed the present stay petition under the proviso to section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking stay of outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The demand raised by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 after OGE to the ld. CIT-A order dated 19-06-2025 amounts to Rs. 17,01,34,053.00 (including interest of Rs. 4,22,83,495.00). The assessee submits that it has already paid the sum of Rs. 4,94,00,000.00 towards the outstanding Printed from counselvise.com SA No.160/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . demand which constitutes the payment more than 20% of the total outstanding demand. 3. Likewise, the assessee submits that it has a strong case on merit for the following reasons: i. The issue relating to the disallowance of SPV Expenditure of Rs. 7,01,48,000 by the Revenue is in favour of the assessee by the order of this Tribunal in the earlier year which was also acknowledged by the Revenue. ii. The disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D should be limited to the extent of exempt income of Rs. 1,83,665 instead of Rs. 15,11,561.00. iii. There was double taxation of Rs. 17.82 crores on account of de-capitalisation of the expenses out of the sum of Rs. 39,17,67,355. Furthermore, the de-capitalisation expenses should be allowed as revenue expenses. iv. There was sufficient fund available to the assessee, therefore there cannot be any disallowance of expenses on account of diversion of fund. v. For other additions, it was submitted that they involve small amount of disallowances but they are strongly in favour of the assessee. 4. In view of above, the ld. AR contended that, in light of the payments already made exceeding the stipulated 20% threshold and meritorious case of the assessee, the balance demand should be stayed until the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the ld. AR appearing for the assessee prayed for the grant of stay till the disposal of the appeal Printed from counselvise.com SA No.160/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . otherwise, it will cause genuine hardship if the coercive actions are taken for the recovery of the outstanding demand from the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the stay petition but did not dispute the fact that the assessee has already deposited significantly more than 20% of the outstanding demand. 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The parameters to be taken into account in considering the grant of stay of disputed demand are well settled – the existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency and the balance of ‘Financial stringency’ would include within its ambit the question of ‘irreparable injury’ and ‘undue hardship’ as well and arrive at the balance of convenience in the matter. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has already paid significant amount against the outstanding demand for the AY in dispute. Likewise, the assessee has also strong case on merit. Accordingly, we are of the view that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we exercise our discretion in favour of the assessee for the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand. Accordingly, we direct that the balance outstanding demand be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal or for a period of 6 months whichever is earlier. 6.1 It is also pertinent to note that the case for hearing has already been listed i.e. 12-01-2026. Accordingly, there is no need to give a fresh date of the hearing. However, the assessee shall not seek any adjournment on the date of the hearing without just cause, otherwise Printed from counselvise.com SA No.160/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . the bench hearing the case shall be its liberty to revoke the stay order. Thus, the stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of above. 7. In the result, the stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in court on 9th day of January, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 9th January, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "