Home › › Page 3

Search Results For: limitation period

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 201(3): The amendment to s. 201(3) by FA 2014 to extend the time limit for passing s. 201 orders is prospective and does not apply to cases which are already time-barred. A show-cause notice involving a pure point of law can be challenged in a Writ Petition

An accrued right to plead a time barred which is acquired after the lapse of the statutory period is in every sense a right even though it arises under an Act which is procedural. It is a right which is not to be taken away by conferring on the statute a retrospective operation unless such a construction is unavoidable. while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable w.e.f. 1/10/2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 had become time barred and/or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation under section 201(3)(i) of the Act had already expired on 31/3/2011 and 31/3/2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and therefore, as such a right has been accrued in favour of the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 275(1)(c): For penalty proceedings initiated on issues unrelated to assessment of income (such as for s. 269SS/ 269T & TDS defaults), time limit runs from date of initiation of penalty proceedings and not from date of CIT(A)'s order

Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-compliance with Section 269T of the Act, there was no need for the appeal against the said order in the quantum proceedings to be disposed of before the penalty proceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been made explicit in the decision in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444 in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 291 ITR 244(Raj)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 275(1)(a): Law on time limit for passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) explained. Challenge by assessee to validity of penalty order entertained in Dept's appeal despite lack of C. O. /cross-appeal by assessee

On a combined reading of Section 275(1)(a) along with its proviso it becomes clear that main section 275(1)(a) talks of a period of six months from the date on which the order is received by commissioner and main section also talks of orders passed by commissioner appeals as well as by tribunal talk whereas the proviso which is applicable from 01.06.2003 talks about orders passed by Commissioner Appeals only and here, the period of limitation for passing penalty order is one year from the date Commissioner receives Tribunal order

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1990-91 to 2000-01
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 158BE: The search ends, and the period of limitation begins, only on the drawing up of the formal panchnama to record the ending of the search. The argument that the search is concluded on the date of the search itself if nothing is seized thereafter is not acceptable

Ordinarily an authorization for search is valid until the same has been executed. In order to avoid any controversy as to when was the authorization executed the legislature has provided in the aforesaid explanation that the authorization shall be deemed to have been executed on conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama. Therefore, the law insists upon a panchnama for the purpose of formal recording that the search is at an end. Without such recording the search once initiated does not come to an end. We are unable to find any justification for the view that search comes to an end immediately after the search has been concluded for the day

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Issue of notice straightaway through affixture is not proper & renders proceedings void. On the expiry of the limitation period valuable rights accrue to the assessee

(i) The Tribunal took note of the fact that (a) the issuance of a notice straight away through affixture is not proper; (b) no efforts were made to send the notices to the partners through registered post with acknowledge due; …

CIT vs. Godavari Electrical Conductors (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 28, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 29, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02 & 2002- 03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
As per proviso to s. 153C, the date of receiving books of account or documents shall be considered the date of search. Therefore, under proviso to s. 153C and s. 153A(1)(b), in the case of person in whose case action is required u/s 153C, the AO is empowered to take action u/s 153C for the year in which the seized document is received by him and the preceding six years

As per Section 153A(1)(b), the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the assessment year in which search is conducted. Thus, in other words, …

R. L. Allied Industries vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Read More »

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 158BD: Issue of notice u/s 158BD to the non-searched party has to be within the two years period given to the AO for completion of block assessment u/s 158BE(1)

The AO passed an order u/s 158BC in the case of Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Limited. After the expiry of two years, he initiated proceedings u/s 158BD against the assessee. The Tribunal struck down the s. 158BD proceedings …

CIT vs. V. D. Muralidharan (Madras High Court) Read More »