Hon’ble Sushil Chandra, the Chairman of the CBDT, has issued a directive dated 13th June 2018 to the Principal Commissioners of Income-tax in which the shocking revelation is made that several vigilance complaints against income-tax officials are pending for several years and no action thereon has been taken. It is also stated that there are virtually no cases in which disciplinary proceedings on account of misconduct have been initiated by the department on its own. This indicates that actions which should have been taken by the department on complaints against Group ‘B’ and Group ‘C’ officers/ officials are not being taken proactively
The CBDT has issued a draft notification dated 19th June 2018 by which it proposes to amend Rule 10CB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in respect of computation of interest income pursuant to secondary adjustment made under section 92CE of Income-tax Act, 1961. The CBDT has invited comments and suggestions from all taxpayers and tax professionals
The CBDT has issued a draft notification dated 13th June 2018 proposing amendments to the Form of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (Form No.36) and Form of memorandum of cross-objections to the Appellate Tribunal (Form No.36A). A tabular chart setting out the proposed amendments is set out. Top tax lawyers have expressed their preliminary views on the subject
The CBDT has issued an office order no. 90 of 2018 dated 11th June 2018 by which it has regularized the promotion of several officers to the grade of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Pr CIT) (level 15 in the pay matrix of Rs. 1,82,200 – 2,24,100) against the panel year 2016-17, with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the post by them
The CBDT has vide office order no. 86 of 2018 dated 4th June 2018 ordered the transfers and postings of several Assistant/ Deputy Commissioners Of Income-tax (Local Change) with immediate effect and until further orders
In Olympia Paper & Stationery Stores vs. ACIT 63 ITD 148 (Mad), the ITAT held that applications for early hearing should be disposed of by a judicial order and cannot be dealt with on the administrative side. It was explained that grant of early hearing to one party is preferential treatment and causes prejudice to other litigants. It was held that early hearing cannot be granted except if there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons. This view of the ITAT has been approved by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Dr. Prannoy Roy vs. DCIT.
Pursuant to the said judgement, the Hon’ble President of the ITAT has issued an order dated 24th May 2018 directing that all applications for early hearing should be heard by the Bench and not dealt with by the administrative head