The Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questions the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
In other words, in all instances of an assessing officer having to pass a fresh assessment order upon remand where section 153(2A) would apply, the assessing officer would be bound to follow the time-limit imposed by sub-section (2A). Where the assessing officer was only giving effect to an appellate order, then section 153(3)(ii) of the Act would apply.
What is contemplated by Section 263, is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Exemption from tax to encourage industrialization cannot be equated with refund of tax. They are two different legal and distinct concepts. An exemption is a concession allowed to a class or individual from general burden for valid and justifiable reason.
CIT Vs. Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Due to difference of opinion on below issues between Justices S Muralidhar and Prathiba M Singh, Delhi High Court, has referred the Mitusubishi’s TDS case to Chief Justice for appropriate orders:- (i) Whether the ITAT fell into error in holding that Section 40(a) (i) of […]
In the present case, it is stated that the Petitioner has already paid the Clean Energy Cess under Chapter VII of the Finance Act, 2010 CFA 2010′) on the coal lying in stock on 30th June, 2017. Such stock is stated to be around 2,85,418 tonnes, on which the cess already paid is to an extent of Rs. 11.41 crores.
Commissioner cannot refuse to entertain a revision petition filed by the assessee under Section 264 of the Act if it is maintainable on the ground that a similar issue has arisen for consideration in another year and is pending adjudication in appeal or another forum.
It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake.
Pr. CIT Vs Makemy Trip India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The difference of opinion between the CIT(A) and the TPO, as to the appropriateness of one or the other methods, cannot per se be a ground for interference; the appropriateness of […]
Court would like to observe that CAs ought to maintain the highest level of ethics and integrity, not only in the interest of their clients but also to ensure that probity and sanctity are not compromised in any manner as CAs are not merely professionals engaged by their clients, but are protectors and guardians of financial markets on which a nation depends.
