2012-TIOL-797-ITAT-MUM
Pfizer Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: October 19, 2012)
Income Tax – Sections 234B, 234C, 234D - Whether the assessee is liable to pay
interest u/s 234B where the tax liability increased owing to circumstances beyond its
control.
-
Income Tax – Sections 234B, 234C, 234D - Whether the assessee is liable to pay
interest u/s 234B where the tax liability increased owing to circumstances beyond its
control.
-
ACIT Vs M/s Sterling Infotech Ltd (Dated: July 30, 2012)
Income Tax – Sections 14A, 143(1), 147 – Reassessment - Disallowance - Whether
the cross-objection on reopening of assessment can be raised before Tribunal when
the same was not raised before the AO and CIT(A) - Whether the reopening of
assessment to recompute the losses based on submissions available at time of original
assessment is valid.
Income Tax – Sections 14A, 143(1), 147 – Reassessment - Disallowance - Whether
the cross-objection on reopening of assessment can be raised before Tribunal when
the same was not raised before the AO and CIT(A) - Whether the reopening of
assessment to recompute the losses based on submissions available at time of original
assessment is valid.
Search and seizure€ ¢â' '´New scheme of assessment in search cases€ ¢â' '´Validity of Search proceedings€ ¢â' '´CIT(A) held that valid search was conducted u/s 132, in case of Respondent-Assessee€ ¢â' '´Held, perusal of Panchnama shows that name of Assessee was mentioned in Panchnama, place had been identified categorically as Bank account€ ¢â' '´On specific direction to CIT, DR, assessee showed copy of warrant to Bench€ ¢â' '´Warrant contained name of Assessee and Bank account number and Branch name, etc.€ ¢â' '´Moreover, when Assessee was challenging warrant to be illegal, then it was required to be challenged by filing affidavit alleging same€ ¢â' '´Such affidavit had not been filed in any of Cross Objections in bunch of appeals€ ¢â' '´Search had validly been conducted on Assessee€ ¢â' '´AO legally assumed jurisdiction for issue of notices u/s 153A for the six Assessment years
Department cannot initiate proceedings when assessee had time to fulfil statutory obligations
Bharat Enterprises Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Export) [2014 (9) TM! 579- Madras High Court]
In the instant case, Bharat Enterprises (the Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Madras High Court challenging the Order passed by the Revenue wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner had not fulfilled the export obligations as were required under the license issued to the Petitioner within the stipulated period of 8 years. Therefore, the Petitioner was directed to pay duty amount of Rs. 5,11,350/-under the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act).
The Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that the Petitioner was granted a time period of 8 years to fulfil the export obligations. However, the Department had initiated the proceedings before the expiry of stipulated period of 8 years. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court held that initiation of proceedings in such a case was completely arbitrary and faulty. It was further held that proceedings should only have been initiated if the Petitioner had not fulfilled the export obligations as per the license conditions and commencement of proceedings before the end of stipulated time period would lead to failure of substantial justice. Accordingly, the demand raised against the Petitioner was set aside.
(Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons), Mobile: +91 9810604563, Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com)
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment