Monday, 31 August 2015
After SC Judgement in Suman Dhamija dtd 01-07-2015, CBDT has instructed the officers to file review petitions/ misc. applications in cases where appeals before 2011 were dismissed following low tax effect Instruction No. 3/2011dtd 09-02-2011 applied to pending cases filed before issue of these Instructions.Relevant Instructions Issued on 27-08-2015
In absence of fulfilment of fundamental fact that land was used for agriculture, merely mentioning of land as agricultural land in purchase deed or sale deed or even in revenue records cannot establish case of assessee that land sold by it was an agricultural land
Abhijit Subhash Gaikwad[2015] 60 taxmann.com 259 (Pune - Trib.)MAY 27, 2015
Punjab & Haryana High Court interpreting "service of notice/order" in Vat case: The order of appeal communicated by DETC A to the branch of the dealer, where as he had communicated head office address for communications, due to which there was delay of 907 days in filing appeal to the VAT Tribunal. The Vat Tribunal upheld the service under section 27 of General Clauses Act. Punjab and Haryana High Court however held quoting ” The Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, Patiala V/s Lalita Kapur’ (P&H)(DB), 1970 CurLJ 523, that Division Bench of this Court has already held that presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 stands rebutted in case the service is effected on an assessee under Section 63 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 through its agent never appointed by it, as it shall not be a valid service”. Hence service is invalid and delay condoned- M/s. B.K. Steels VAT AP 214/2014 dated 10-08-2015 Comments: Section 27 of General Clauses Act is applicable under Income tax law also, by virtue of Section 282 of Income tax Act. The above Judgement substantiated that presumption u/S 27 is not non rebuttable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)