AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.363 OF 2009 M/s. E-Emphasys Infotech Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioners Vs. Income Tax Officer (10)(3)(1) Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents Ms. Aarti Vissanji with S.J. Mehta for the petitioners. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The petitioners have challenged Order dated 16/2/2009 whereby the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, has directed the petitioners to pay 50% of the demand after adjusting the amounts of payments already made or refunds adjusted or pending adjustments. The demand is raised for the Assessment Year AJN 2 2006-07. 2. The basic grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners' claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is rejected even though it was granted in the earlier assessment years. 3. Whether the assessing officer is justified in denying the benefit under Section 10B of the Act in spite of such benefit being granted in the year is the question to be considered in the appeal. It appears that before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the petitioners have offered to pay 20% of the assessed dues. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of 50%, the petitioners should be directed to pay 20% of the tax demanded. Hence, the following order: 4. The petitioners are directed to pay 20% of the assessed dues instead of 50%, after adjusting the amounts which have already been paid, within one week from today. On such deposit being made, the demand raised for Assessment Year 2006-07 shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal and if the order passed AJN 3 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is adverse to the petitioners, for a further period of 30 days thereafter, there shall be stay of recovery of balance dues. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]