Home ›

Search Results For: S. Sriram

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , , , ,
DATE: January 15, 2021 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 23, 2021 (Date of publication)
AY: 2020-21
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Extension of Due Date for filing RoI and TAR: Power exercised by the CBDT u/s 119 is discretionary. On careful consideration of the order passed by the CBDT on 11.01.2021, we are of the considered view that it cannot be said that CBDT had failed to exercise its discretion or that it acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner in refusing to grant further extension of the due dates. We therefore do not find any good ground to invoke our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct CBDT for further extension of the due dates

We find from the order dated 11th January, 2020 passed by the CBDT under section 119 of the Act that across the board three extensions of the due dates have been granted. In so far filing of tax audit report is concerned, the original due date was 30th September, 2020, which was first extended to 31st October, 2020, thereafter to 31st December, 2020 and now to 15th January, 2021. In respect of filing of income tax return in those cases where tax audit report is required to be filed the original due date was 31st October, 2020 which was first extended to 30th November, 2020, thereafter to 31st January, 2021 and finally to 15th February, 2021. Thus, we find that CBDT had considered the evolving situation in the country and thereafter, had extended the due dates on three occasions. Now CBDT says that filing of audit reports and income tax reports cannot be delayed indefinitely. Therefore, a line has been drawn that no further extension of the due dates would be granted.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): A disclosure of income, or withdrawal of claim for deduction, by the assessee after a specific s. 142(1)/ 143(2) notice is issued cannot be said to be a "voluntary disclosure" so as to avoid the levy of penalty. The argument that the earlier non-disclosure of income/ wrong claim for expenditure was due to "mistake" is not an acceptable defense (Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) followed, Price Waterhouse Coopers 348 ITR 306 (SC) distinguished)

It is clear that so called mistake as claimed by the assessee, was only after notices dated 14th January, 2009 were issued under Sections 142 and 143 of the Act. It was only an attempt to preempt the Revenue finding out the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was voluntary disclosure.

Read more ›