New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (3) TMI 984 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (3) TMI 984 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Waiver to interest, fine and penalty rejected - petition to condone delay rejected - tax on investment towards purchase of property in Mannargudi out of sale proceeds of gold brought under NRI scheme - petitioner is a non-resident Indian working in Singapore - Held that:- Though there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to pay interest, fine and penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Dated:- 19-3-2015 - S.Vaidyanathan J. For the Appellant : Mr.S.Udayakumar For the Respondents : Mr. Pramod Kumar Chopda ORDER The petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition to quash the proceedings dated 11.9.2014 and the demand notice dated 10.9.2014 passed by the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a non-resident Indian working in Singapore. The petitioner was directed to file income tax return for the year 1995-96. He filed return declaring nil income. On receipt of the return fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ame was dismissed on account of delay but not on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have made a representation dated 05.6.2010 to the authority. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP.No.21021 of 2010. This Court, by order dated 24.09.2010, directed the petitioner to make fresh application for waiver. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.12.2011. Since the same was also not considered, the petitioner filed another w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and penalty, the respondents have passed the impugned order that too, without considering the representations made by the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to him. Therefore, the impugned order is per se illegal and non est in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to pay interest, fine and penalty apart from the tax amount, which is due from 1994 1995. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version