Search Results For: advance ruling


Hyosung Corporation vs. AAR (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 17, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 245R(2): A notice u/s 143(2)(ii) cannot be issued in a routine, casual or mechanical manner but after forming an opinion that it is "necessary or expedient" to do so. A S. 143(2) notice in the standard form is not a bar u/s 245R(2) for admission of an AAR application for advance ruling

Under Section 143 (2) (ii) of the Act, an AO can serve on the Assessee a notice requiring him to attend his office and produce any evidence on which the Assessee seeks to rely in support of return if the AO “considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the Assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid the tax in any manner’. Therefore, the scope of the enquiry that an AO can undertake in terms of Section 143 (2) (ii) is a wide ranging one. What is relevant for the present case is that prior to issuance of the notice under Section 143 (2) (ii) the AO has to form an opinion that it is ‘necessary or expedient’ to ensure that an Assessee has not (i) understated the income or (ii) has not computed excessive loss, or (iii) has not underpaid the tax in any manner. The AO is, therefore, not expected to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) (ii) in a routine or casual or mechanical manner

Top