F.No.225/207/2015/ITA.II
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
North-Block, ITA.II Division
New Delhi dated the 30th day of September, 2015
Order under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act 1961
The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in compliance to the order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 28.09.2015 in case of Vishal Garg & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.; CWP 19770-2015 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (‘Act’), hereby orders that the returns of income due to be E-filed by 30th September, 2015 may be filed by 31st October, 2015 in cases of Income-tax assessees of the State(s) of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh.
2. This order shall be subject to the outcome of any further appeal/SlP which the CBDT may file against the said judgment.
(Rohit Garg)
Deputy-Secretary to the Government of India
F.No.22S/207/201S/ITA.II
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
North-Block, ITA.II Division
New Delhi dated the 30th of September, 2015
Order under Section 119 of the Income tax Act. 1961
The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in compliance to the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dated 29.09 .2015 in case of All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT; Special Civil Application No. 15075 of 2015 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), hereby orders that the returns of income due to be E-fiJed by 30th September,2015 may be filed by 31st October, 2015 in cases of Income-tax assessees of the State of Gujarat.
2. This order shall be subject to the outcome of any further appeal/SLP which the CBDT may file against the said judgment.
(Rohit Garg)
Deputy-Secretary to the Government of India
Any why don’t we file a second writ petition seeking additional interest on refunds over and above 6% – because we were prevented from filing our claim of refund by 4 months by CBDT by delaying the notification of forms.
should we file a second writ petition asking Court to direct state to recover losses on account of late notification of the ITR forms by 4 months from CBDT members?
i mean their logic in opposing the extension is always revenue loss…. the exchequer lost substantial sums due to late notification… if one month extension can cause revenue loss, four months notification has already caused substantial loss. So who is responsible? Mr. FM are you listening?
Sir, its nothing but the sheer misuse of unwarranted powers enjoyed by highly egoistic IRS, IAS officers – where nobody is able to question them for the delay in devising & releasing few ITR forms in time, inspite of having the whole governmental machinery at their disposal – while at the same time they have the arrogance of going to Supreme Court against the very reasonable & practical High Court directions. They are enjoying same powers bestowed under the those ACTS devised during British Raj wherein they wanted to give this COMPLEX OF INFERIORITY in public minds so that they can make merry. Have seen highly respected knowledgeable CAs, Advocates, consultants stand with folded hands in front of an ordinary officer for fear of harassment – aka british raj
Another example of ‘EASE OF DOING BUSINESS IN INDIA’ In any civilised Society the administration would admit the burden imposed on its citizens caused by its own (as yet unexplained reasons) here the bureaucrats want to show just what enormous power they wield And then we hold shows abroad asking for businesses to come to INDIA !