Search Results For: strictures


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 7, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
"Innovative" method of department of forcing hapless assessees to give "consent letters" for tax recovery deplored and warning issued

At this time it came to the light that the AO has followed an innovative method of collecting taxes despite specific directions of the Bench. Therefore we had called the AO who had collected the revenue by flouting the directions …

Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Senior officers of the department summoned and strictures passed for ‘Irresponsible conduct’ of filing an appeal on a point which is admittedly covered against the department by a judgement of the Supreme Court

The department conceded before the Tribunal that the issue in the appeal was covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Supreme Court in CIT v/s Tulsyan NEC Ltd 330 ITR 226 (SC). However, despite this, the …

CIT vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 19, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
ITAT hauls up AO & DRP for “blatantly frivolous & unsustainable” additions. Suggests that accountability mechanism be set up to put a check on AO. Rationale for existence of ineffective DRP questioned


ITAT hauls up AO & DRP for “blatantly frivolous & unsustainable” additions. Suggests that accountability mechanism be set up to put a check on AO. Rationale for existence of ineffective DRP questioned

if an action of the AO is so blatantly unreasonable that such seasoned senior officers well versed with functioning of judicial forums, as the learned DRs are, cannot even go through the convincing motions of defending the same before us, such unreasonable conduct of the AO deserves to be scrutinized seriously. At a time when evolving societal pressures demand greater degree of accountability in the governance also, it does no good to the judicial institutions to watch such situations as helpless spectators. If it is indeed a case of frivolous addition, someone should be accountable for the resultant undue hardship to the taxpayer