Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. (C) No. 815/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/09/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

The Court is also unable to accept the submission that the 60 day period in terms of the first proviso to Explanation 1 to section 153 of the Act should begin to run from the date on which the Revenue received a copy of the order of vacation of stay. Such an interpretation is not supported by the plain language of the proviso to Explanation 1. In fact, Circular No. 621, date 19-12-1991 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, while explaining the reasons for introduction of the proviso under Explanation 1, acknowledged that the time remaining after vacation of stay in terms of section 153(2) of the Act may not be sufficient to complete the re-assessment proceedings which is why the language used in the first proviso is that the period “shall be extended to 60 days” for passing the assessment order in terms of section 153(2) of the Act if the period remaining within limitation after the excluded period has elapsed is less than 60 days.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031