Search Results For: 139(1)


Binoy Visam vs. UOI (Aadhaar Card Linkage With PAN) (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: June 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 10, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 139AA (inserted by the Finance Act 2017) which mandates quoting of Aadhaar number with the PAN is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The proviso to s. 139AA(2) (which deems the PAN void ab initio if the Aadhaar number is not quoted) is also valid. However, as the challenge under Article 21 is pending before the Constitution Bench, a partial stay is granted. Those who are already enrolled under the Aadhaar scheme should comply with s. 139AA (2). Those who are not enrolled need not do so for the time being and their PAN will not be treated as invalid. The said proviso to s. 139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively as it takes away vested rights. It will only have prospective effect

Having said so, it becomes clear from the aforesaid discussion that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld. At the same time, as far as existing PAN holders are concerned, since the impugned provisions are yet to be considered on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution, including on the debate around Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. as limbs of Article 21, we are of the opinion that till the aforesaid aspect of Article 21 is decided by the Constitution Bench a partial stay of the aforesaid proviso is necessary. Those who have already enrolled themselves under Aadhaar scheme would comply with the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act. Those who still want to enrol are free to do so. However, those assessees who are not Aadhaar card holders and do not comply with the provision of Section 139(2), their PAN cards be not treated as invalid for the time being. It is only to facilitate other transactions which are mentioned in Rule 114B of the Rules. We are adopting this course of action for more than one reason. We are saying so because of very severe consequences that entail in not adhering to the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act. A person who is holder of PAN and if his PAN is invalidated, he is bound to suffer immensely in his day to day dealings, which situation should be avoided till the Constitution Bench authoritatively determines the argument of Article 21 of the Constitution. Since we are adopting this course of action, in the interregnum, it would be permissible for the Parliament to consider as to whether there is a need to tone down the effect of the said proviso by limiting the consequences

The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) – II

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against CBDT for causing ‘very unfair discrimination' between taxpayers by extending due date for filing ROI only for taxpayers in P&H and Gujarat and not for those in other States

Taking into account the fact that the decision of the Gujarat High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court have been accepted by the CBDT issuing orders under Section 119 of the Act but very unfairly in case of an all India Statute restricting its benefit to only two States and one Union Territory. This itself warrants an extension of due date to the same date as is available for the assessees in Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana to avoid any discrimination to the assessees else where

The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
CBDT directed to forthwith issue an order u/s 119 to extend the due date for filing ROI to 31.10.2015

The Respondent No.2 i.e. CBDT is directed to forthwith issue the order/ notification under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act and extend the due date for Efiling of the Income Tax Returns in respect of the assessee who are required to file return of income by 30th September, 2015 to 31st October, 2015

All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against CBDT for being lax and delaying issuing of the Forms and then taking adamant stand by not extending due date for filing ROI. CBDT directed to issue order u/s 119 to extend due date for filing ROI to 31.10.2015

The Board while not extending the due date for filing return was also of the view that due date should not be extended just for the benefit of those who have remained lax till now for no valid reason in discharging their legal obligations. It may be noted that despite the fact that ordinarily the ITR Forms which should be prescribed and made available before the 1st of April of the assessment year, have in fact, been made available only on 7th August, 2015 and the assessees are given only seven weeks to file their tax returns. Therefore, laxity, if any, evidently is on the part of the authority which is responsible for the delay in making the utility for E-Filing the return being made available to the assessees. When the default lies at the end of the respondents, some grace could have been shown by the Board instead of taking a stand that such a trend may not be encouraged. Had it not been for the laxity on the part of the respondents in providing the utilities, there would not have been any cause for the petitioners to seek extension of the due date for filing tax returns

Vishal Garg vs. UOI (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
As the CBDT delayed issued the Income-tax Return Forms, the due date for filing the returns is extended to 31.10.2015. CBDT directed to issue an appropriate order u/s 119

In view of the above, taking the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate to extend the due date for e-filing of returns upto 31st October 2015 for which the CBDT shall issue appropriate notification/instructions under Section 119 of the Act. Direction is also issued to the respondents to ensure that the forms etc. which are to be prescribed for the audit report and for e-filing the returns should ordinarily be made available on the first day of April of the assessment year

All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest


Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest

(vi) The CBDT ought to have responded to the representation. Instead, it chose not to respond but later before this Court in no uncertain terms has termed such a request impermissible on the ground that the grievances are not sustainable. Therefore, considering the larger cause of public good and keeping in mind the requirement of promotion of justice, we chose to exercise the writ of mandamus directing the CBDT to extend the date of filing of return of income to 30.11.2014, which is due date for filing of the TAR as per the Notification dated 20.08.2014. Such extension is granted with the qualification that the same may not result into non-charging of interest u/s 234A

The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause “substantial hardship". CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take "just and proper" decision before 30.09.2014


Non-Extension Of due date for filing ROI will cause “substantial hardship“. CBDT must look into practical difficulties & take “just and proper” decision before 30.09.2014

In view of the fact that the Madras High Court has already directed the CBDT to examine the representation of the assessees in general, before 30.09.2014, we feel it appropriate that the above representation of the Petitioners is also considered by the CBDT. Though we do not wish to express any view of the legalities of various issues involved, it does appear to us, from the arguments advanced, that there will be substantial hardship caused to the assessees, if the date of filing Return is not suitably extended. We hope and trust that CBDT will look into all these practical difficulties enumerated above and take a just and proper decision on the matter, before 30.09.2014, as already directed by the Madras High Court. In case the Petitioners are entitled to any further relief in view of the orders passed in various petitions filed in other High Courts, this order would not preclude the Petitioners from claiming the same.

Top