Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.26 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 239 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 237 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Uco Bank, Calcutta vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 13 May, 1999
"Such instructions may be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the sections specified there or otherwise. The Board thus has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under Section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. Thus, the authority which wields the power for its own advantage under the Act is given the right to forgo the advantage when required to wield it in a manner it considers just by relaxing the rigour of the law or in other permissible manners as laid down in Section 119. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases which can be properly categorised as belonging to a class, can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities."
Deversons (P) Ltd. vs Chairman, Cbdt on 1 July, 2004
16. The power of the Board under Section 19(2)(b) to admit an application or claim or return filed after the period specified for avoiding genuine hard- ship caused in any case or class of cases has also been recognised in John Shalex Paints (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 523 (Karn); H. S. Anantharamaiah v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 526 (Karn); Pallavan Transport Con- sultancy Services Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 233 ITR 745 (Mad); Mysore Sales International Ltd.'s case [1998] 233 ITR 663 (Karn) ; Kusumben M. Parikh's case [2000] 242 ITR 501 (Guj) and Dharampal Singh Pall's case [2001] 250 ITR 629 (MP). By admitting a belated claim for refund, the Board neither interferes with the course of assessment of any particular assessee nor with the discretion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which, according to the Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, is the only restriction on the powers of the Board under Section 119 of the Act.
H.S. Anantharamiah vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 4 November, 1992
16. The power of the Board under Section 19(2)(b) to admit an application or claim or return filed after the period specified for avoiding genuine hard- ship caused in any case or class of cases has also been recognised in John Shalex Paints (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 523 (Karn); H. S. Anantharamaiah v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 526 (Karn); Pallavan Transport Con- sultancy Services Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 233 ITR 745 (Mad); Mysore Sales International Ltd.'s case [1998] 233 ITR 663 (Karn) ; Kusumben M. Parikh's case [2000] 242 ITR 501 (Guj) and Dharampal Singh Pall's case [2001] 250 ITR 629 (MP). By admitting a belated claim for refund, the Board neither interferes with the course of assessment of any particular assessee nor with the discretion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which, according to the Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, is the only restriction on the powers of the Board under Section 119 of the Act.
Accountant And Secretarial Services ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 July, 1988
16. The power of the Board under Section 19(2)(b) to admit an application or claim or return filed after the period specified for avoiding genuine hard- ship caused in any case or class of cases has also been recognised in John Shalex Paints (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 523 (Karn); H. S. Anantharamaiah v. CBDT [1993] 201 ITR 526 (Karn); Pallavan Transport Con- sultancy Services Ltd. v. Union of India [1998] 233 ITR 745 (Mad); Mysore Sales International Ltd.'s case [1998] 233 ITR 663 (Karn) ; Kusumben M. Parikh's case [2000] 242 ITR 501 (Guj) and Dharampal Singh Pall's case [2001] 250 ITR 629 (MP). By admitting a belated claim for refund, the Board neither interferes with the course of assessment of any particular assessee nor with the discretion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which, according to the Supreme Court in Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706, is the only restriction on the powers of the Board under Section 119 of the Act.