Search Results For: Hiten Chande


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): The law in CIT vs. Ramesh Electrical Co 203 ITR 497 (Bom) that failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a 'mistake apparent from the record' does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT. The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT

The Tribunal ignored the fact that the above observation of this Court in Ramesh Electrical (supra) was on the basis that for a rectification application to be maintainable, the mistake should be apparent from the record. In this case, the mistake / error in not dealing with the fundamental submission in appeal is apparent from the record, as the submission that the distribution fee was not royalty was recorded and yet not dealt with in the order

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: October 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): We are at a loss to understand why the ITAT has not communicated a date of hearing of the Miscellaneous Application (MA). The ITAT should give priority to the hearing of MAs. It should assign specific dates of hearing and inform parties well in advance. The ITAT should set right the lapses and put its house in order. None should be compelled to move the High Court and seek an out of turn hearing

We have already indicated in our earlier orders and directions that the Tribunal should inform parties well in advance by assigning specific dates of hearing on these Miscellaneous Applications. They should be taken in the order in which they have been instituted/filed. None should be compelled to move this Court and seek an out of turn hearing

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 3, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 18, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 148: A notice u/s 143(2) issued by the AO before the assessee files a return of income has no meaning. If no fresh notice is issued after the assessee files a return, the AO has no jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order and the same has to be quashed

In view of consistent view of jurisdictional High Court and Delhi High Court, in the absence of pending return of income, the provisions of section 143(2) of the Act is clear that notice can be issued only when a valid return is pending for assessment. Accordingly, this notice has no meaning

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2016-17, 2017-18
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271C & 206AA Penalty: The assessee has made out a prima facie case that the outcome of the appeal before the ITAT will directly impact the penalty proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. The Revenue authorities are accordingly restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal (Wander 44 Taxman.com 103 (Bom) & GE India Technology 46 Taxmann.com 374 (Guj) followed)

So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. In our opinion, so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the Revenue authorities should be restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271C and 206AA of the Act however the proceedings may continue

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 244: The Dept should bring some order and discipline to the aspect of granting refunds. All pending refund applications should be processed in the order in which they are received. It is the bounden duty of the Revenue to grant refunds generated on account of orders of higher forums and disburse the amount expeditiously. In the absence of a clear policy, the Courts may impose interest on the quantum of refund at such rates determined by the Court

We hope and trust that all pending refund applications are processed in the order in which they are received by the Respondents. If refunds are generated on account of orders of Higher Forums, Authorities and Courts, then, it is the bounden duty of the Revenue to grant such refund and disburse the amount expeditiously

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Severe strictures passed against the department for filing a 'patently false' affidavit with regard to the failure to remove office objections. The cause shown is not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. Tendency of the Revenue to either blame its' Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals deprecated

We find that the explanation or reason given in paragraph 3 of this affidavit to be patently false. If paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of this affidavit-in-support cannot be reconciled, then, it is obvious that though aware of the conditional orders after lodging of the subject Appeal, the Revenue’s Advocate and the Revenue officials did not take the requisite steps. They cannot now come out with such a version for seeking restoration of a dismissed Appeal. The cause shown is, therefore, not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. In two similar Motions, we had deprecated the tendency of the Revenue to either blame it’s Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals