Answers On Topic: writ petition
We have applied under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME against the demand mentioned in the Order for the relevant year. income tax authority issued Form 5, but its not updated in their system. and now the authorities also adjusted my refund against that due amount which i have already paid under vivad se vishwas scheme. what is remedy with me ?
► Read Answer
ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL WITH ITAT AFTER DELAY OF 1300 DAYS WHICH WAS DUE TO ADVISE GIVEN BY CA NOT TO FILE . LATER DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS , NEW LEGAL COUNSEL ADVISED TO FILE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITAT AS LEGAL ISSUES WERE INVOLVED. HENCE APPEAL WITH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION AND AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR. LAND ACQUISITION 167 ITR 471 AND 3 JURISDICTIONAL ITAT DECISIONS IN FAVOUR WERE CITED. DELAY FOR CONDONATION WAS REJECTED AND APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. WHILE DOING SO ,NONE OF THESE DECISIONS WERE CONSIDERED AND FOR REJECTION…
► Read Answer
assessee is partnership firm. has received the Notices U/Sec. 148 for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 after 31.03.2021. Therefore, wishes to challenged the validity of the same . whether assessee has to filed two separate WP or can file One WP mentioning facts for each year separately in the petition. pl guide
► Read Answer
Assessee has received the Notice U/SEc, 147/148 after 31.03.2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 and assessee has also filed the ROI in response to same. In this respect assessee challenged the validity of the said notice on the ground that Explanation A(a)(ii) and Explanation A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 respectively issued under The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 are ultra vires to the said Relaxation Act, 2020. How ever AO has not responded to the same. After the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Communications…
► Read Answer
A search was conducted at various places of a group "G" thereafter, search was conducted in the case of persons who are connected or related with group "G". Search was conducted at the premises of Mr. X under the wrong presumption that Mr. X is connected/related with group "G". Mr. Y was similar named person of Mr. X. Actually, search was tobe conducted at the premisis of Mr. Y whereas it was wrongly conducted at the premises of Mr. X. During the search at the premises of Mr. X, not a sigle document / paper / valuable article or any…
► Read Answer
refund