Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (3.35 seconds)

P.Shanmugam, Coimbatore vs Ito, Coimbatore on 11 January, 2017

In the same decision in CIT vs. Salarpur Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (supra), the Allahabad High Court noticed that the decision of the Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (supra) where in relation to block assessment, the Supreme Court held that the requirement to issue notice under s. 143(2) was mandatory. It was not "a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under s. 143(2) cannot be dispensed with."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shri Govind Narain Johari, Jaipur vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur on 12 April, 2022

[Provided that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished] The ld. A/R therefore, submitted that from the plain reading of the above provisions, it can be clearly understood that notice under section 143(2) has to be mandatorily issued within the time limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act. The ld. A/R placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Salarpur Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. (2015) 228 Taxman 48 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that Notice issued beyond specified period. The AO issued notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 on 06.10.2009 which was beyond period prescribed under section 143(2) of the Act which was till 30.09.2009. Although the assessee had co-operated with proceedings but section 292BB of the Act would not save a situation where the notice itself had not been issued before the expiry of the period of limitation since it could only cure a defect of service within the stipulated 8 ITA NO. 501/JP/2015 M/s. Handmade Paper & Board Industries, Jaipur.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next