Failure to issue notice on any particular issue does not vitiate the exercise of power under Section 263 as long as the assessee is heard and given opportunity
In the circumstances, a direction is issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in an expeditious manner i.e., on or before 31/01/2018. It is needless to observe that in view of the specific direction issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, both parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal.
The Judicial Functioning Of The Supreme Court Of India Is Separate/ Independent From Its Administrative Functioning. The Dissemination Of Information Under The SCR Is A Part Of Judicial Function, Exercise Of Which Cannot Be Taken Away By Any Statute. The SCR Would Be Applicable With Regard To The Judicial Functioning Of The Supreme Court; Whereas For The Administrative Functioning Of The Supreme Court, The RTI Act Would Be Applicable.
The Madras High Court has quashed the Income Tax Assessment Orders passed against P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate & Former Union Finance Minister, his wife Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, and his son Karthi Chidambaram. The High Court quashed the order terming it as illegal, arbitrary, and issued without following principles of natural justice.
Where AO passed order of reassessment under section 147, even when Revenue processed return of assessee under section 143(1)(i) by intimation, the impugned assessment order deserved to be quashed, as the AO could not proceed with extraordinary power under section 147, when normal procedure of assessment of income under section 143(3) was available.
Petitioner is challenging imposition of GST on the confectionery items on the ground that it does not come within the purview of taxes at the rate of 18% to 28%, as imposed by the respondents.
Lack of opportunity at the revisional stage under Section 263 does not vitiate the entire order, or the proceedings; rather it is a curable defect. Court is of the opinion that the ruling in Commissioner of Income tax v Amitabh Bacchan 2016 SCC Online SC 484 is decisive; it upholds the power of the Commissioner to consider all aspects which were the subject matter of the AO’s order, if in his opinion, they are erroneous, despite the assessee’s appeal on that or some other aspect.
Respondent was required to consider as to merely because the notified party in the commercial invoice contains an address in Chennai, can the transaction be suspected to be one for sale within the State of Tamil Nadu. In fact, when the Detention Notice was issued on suspicion, there was no tangible material available with the officer to suspect that the imported goods were intended for sale in Tamil Nadu.
An order cannot be revised by the equally situated or equally ranked authority or by any authority who is not authorised under the law. In the instant case the authorised authority is none else but the Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
The petitioner – a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – has filed the present petition impugning communications dated 01.08.2014 and 07.12.2015 (hereafter referred to as the impugned communications)
