Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)

Staark Accessories Private Limited, ... vs Acit, Circle 13(2)(2) on 6 February, 2024

upheld the tribunal's decisions that assessee didn't raise the plea of additional ground earlier in spite of the opportunity being available. Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in this case has further held that "no doubt that an appellate authority can allow a question to be raised for the first time even if such a question was not raised at a lower forum but the discretion to do so has to be exercised in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances and not mechanically." (Annexure C) Furthermore, in case of Josh Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh [2017] 79 taxmann.com 435 (Punjab & Haryana) honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that "Assessee, having not raised any objection with regard to issuance and service of a valid notice during assessment proceedings and rather, without any objection, having voluntarily taken part in such proceedings, could not seek annulment of assessment proceedings on ground of non-service of notice." (Annexure D) Without prejudice to the above this additional ground should not be allowed at this stage as section 124(3) specifically bars a person from raising question about jurisdiction of AO after expiry of 1 month from the date of service of notice under section 143(2). As per section, 124(3)(a) no person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an assessing officer, where he has made a return under sec 139 (1), after the expiry of 1 month from the date on which he was served a notice under section 143(2) or 142(1) or after completion of assessment whichever is earlier. In this case assessee has filed return for A.Y 2016-17 under sec 139(1) declaring loss of Rs. 36413448 and case was selected for scrutiny through system Computer Added Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Accordingly, statutory notice under sec 143(2) dated 03/07/2017 was issued automatically by without any manual interference by the office of ITO 13(2)(4).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Nair vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 November, 2023

5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further contended that there must be some discipline in filing the returns, otherwise it would be an example of demoralisation of the work done by the Officers, who all are filtering the returns. The learned Senior Standing Counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Wipro Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income- Tax-III, Bangalore and Another reported in (2022) 142 taxmann.com 562 (SC). Therefore, he would submit that since there was no genuinity towards the reasons provided by the petitioner, it was rightly rejected by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K Ramasamy - Full Document

The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Astrotech Steels Private Limited on 3 June, 2025

Wipro Limited2 and also in the case of Review Petition filed in 1 TCA No.35 of 2024, dated 15.1.2024 2 (2022) 446 ITR 1 __________ Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/06/2025 04:06:21 pm ) TCA No.87 of 2025 Wipro Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax3, wherein it was held that the twin conditions of furnishing the declaration to the Assessing Officer in writing and that the same must be furnished before the due date for filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act must be satisfied, whereas assessee failed to do while claiming deduction under Section 10B?”
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1