Chhattisgarh HC allows
assessee-company’s writ, quashes re-assessment proceedings for AY 2009-10, as
“no notice was served to the petitioner-assessee u/s. 148(1) and service of
notice to the Chartered Accountant (‘CA’) of the petitioner Company is not
service at all..”; Revenue had issued notice in March 2016 on assessee’s
incorrect address which was returned back by the post office, subsequently,
notice was served to assessee, through its CA, in April 2016 [i.e. after period
of limitation u/s. 149(1)]; Rejects Revenue’s stand that since assessee had
participated in the assessment proceedings after service of notice through CA,
filed its return and also raised objections, the assessee is deemed to have
waived service of notice in view of Sec. 292BB; Refers to the proviso to Sec.
292BB, observes that since assessee submitted its objection to AO regarding the
failure to effect service of notice upon it prior to completion of assessment
proceedings, Sec. 292BB presumption is not applicable; Relies on Delhi HC
ruling in Chetan Gupta, Gauhati HC ruling in Mintu Kalita and Allahabad HC
ruling in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash, moreover HC observes that the notice was
served beyond the limitation period u/s. 149(1):HC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GAAR Not Applicable to Genuine Capital Market Transactions: Telangana High Court
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court held that General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) cannot be invoked merely because a transacti...
-
Slump sale is transfer of one or more business undertakings for a lump sum consideration, without assigning individual values to the each...
-
Facts Centrica India Offshore Private Limited (CIO), an Indian Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centrica Plc, UK Centrica Plc a...
-
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd vs. ITSC (Delhi High Court) The assessee entered into a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Compani...
-
The Tax Audit season has started and it’s the time when the Assessees rush to their Chartered Accountants (CA) to get their Tax Audit d...
-
Facts The taxpayer, a partnership firm, derived income from the business of handling and transport of ship containers, customs clearing a...
-
M/s. Alpha Projects Society P. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professi...
-
01. TDS u/s 194J is required to be done for Royalty also w.e.f 13-7-2006. 02. Royalty had been defined under explanation 2 of se...
-
CIT vs. Kan Construction And Colonizers (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) The assessee sold a plot of land for Rs. 79 lakhs. The AO held th...
-
M/s. Merilyn Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam Special Bench) The assessee incurred brokerage expenses of Rs.38....
-
F.No.354/66/2011-TRU Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs...
No comments:
Post a Comment